Return to Greatness

[turbo200]

that's why you are wrong. they are not aspirational because no one aspires to own them, because they are not usually stylish, don't have the best perceived quality, and offer less [generally] than the competition. think of any competitors and envision the levels of technology they offer, then think of the merits of those cars, and then compare them to GM. The merits of the competitors will almost always come out on top [except in the case of the C6 and a CTSV].

[razoredge]

that's why you are wrong. they are not aspirational because no one aspires to own them, because they are not usually stylish, don't have the best perceived quality, and offer less [generally] than the competition. think of any competitors and envision the levels of technology they offer, then think of the merits of those cars, and then compare them to GM. The merits of the competitors will almost always come out on top .

[post="56178"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Camry, Accord......unually stylish ? :unsure:
" the best perceived quality" key word - percieved
"offer less [generally] than the competition" generally ? is that in general, all the time, sometimes, maybe, not sure, could be, have to check ? :unsure:
"think of any competitors and envision the levels of technology they offer" envision the levels ? Is that how you do it ? envision ? Ill have to try that.
"The merits of the competitors will almost always come out on top" almost always ? as in sometimes, maybe, not sure, could be, have to check ? :unsure:

Now is this margin great, small, significant or is it opinion, personal taste, and petty nit picking ? Or is it something that has been implanted into the brain from opinionated magazine reviews ?

[regfootball]

I feel GM vehicles are of high quality, reliability, and style. They are fuel efficient and safe. The reason they are not aspirational is the distress merchandising and brand destroying advertisements and promotions.

[post="56080"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

good luck selling that lesabre with a pushrod engine and heinous interior and sloppy bench seats and ten year old design to a well to do urban professional, or boomer that grew up on accords and civics.

I saw my first lucerne the other day. ugly cloth, bench seats, 3800, BIG price tag. Good luck getting any conquest sales with that. The LaCrosse may have had a chance if it obviously wasn't a visible rehash of the old wbody proportions and the greenhouse of the fleet king, the taurus. every time i hit buick lots this summer looking for possibly a lacrosse, the only cheaper versions were with the 3800 and bench seats. Like anyone shopping mainstream sedans under the age of 60 is gonna want that combo. Edited December 10, 2005 by regfootball

[Guest buickman]

good luck selling that lesabre with a pushrod engine and heinous interior and sloppy bench seats and ten year old design to a well to do urban professional, or boomer that grew up on accords and civics.

I saw my first lucerne the other day.  ugly cloth, bench seats, 3800, BIG price tag.  Good luck getting any conquest sales with that.  The LaCrosse may have had a chance if it obviously wasn't a visible rehash of the old wbody proportions and the greenhouse of the fleet king, the taurus.  every time i hit buick lots this summer looking for possibly a lacrosse, the only cheaper versions were with the 3800 and bench seats.  Like anyone shopping mainstream sedans under the age of 60 is gonna want that combo.

[post="56213"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You're right about dealer inventory. Many old time franchisees don't understand what GM is trying to do by appealing to younger clients. It's really not the facotry's fault if the dealer doesn't know how to best order stock. A LaCrosse or Lucerne has the options available to make them desirable, now get the outlets to stock them that way. It can make all the difference to profitablility when the units turn quickly.

[regfootball]

You're right about dealer inventory. Many old time franchisees don't understand what GM is trying to do by appealing to younger clients. It's really not the facotry's fault if the dealer doesn't know how to best order stock. A LaCrosse or Lucerne has the options available to make them desirable, now get the outlets to stock them that way. It can make all the difference to profitablility when the units turn quickly.

[post="56222"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

then how come all the dealers had the same crappy stock?

[Guest buickman]

then how come all the dealers had the same crappy stock?

[post="56225"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

District managers who are either lazy, or ignorant, don't work with the dealers to diversify the inventories and target market the individual units. This is a HUGE problem, little known to most. This is a tremendous oppportunity and in fact one area where I usually have inordinate success with dealers I consult. Proper inventory has an overwhelming effect on the sales rate, floorplan expense, and overall profitability. Now we're getting into other areas of The Plan beyond the first twenty steps released. Edited December 10, 2005 by buickman

[razoredge]

good luck selling that lesabre with a pushrod engine and heinous interior and sloppy bench seats and ten year old design to a well to do urban professional, or boomer that grew up on accords and civics.

I saw my first lucerne the other day.  ugly cloth, bench seats, 3800, BIG price tag.  Good luck getting any conquest sales with that.  The LaCrosse may have had a chance if it obviously wasn't a visible rehash of the old wbody proportions and the greenhouse of the fleet king, the taurus.  every time i hit buick lots this summer looking for possibly a lacrosse, the only cheaper versions were with the 3800 and bench seats.  Like anyone shopping mainstream sedans under the age of 60 is gonna want that combo.

[post="56213"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You are correct GM's "new" cloth does suck. It didnt used to, it was quality, soft, durable velour available in a multitude of colors. But some idiots decided "new" was better because it was different that "old" and now for something like 10 years we have had this weird "cloth" in all of two colors, shades of gray and baby poop. Well at least it doesnt remind youngsters of the velour that was in mommy and daddys car. :rolleyes:

w body proportions - well somewhere in this topic is stats from two competitors that show the Buick within an inch on most areas so I dont see whats dated except for the knowledge that its "old" In some instances the Buick had the best area.

What took you so long to get in on this GM bash fest Reg ? You missed out on at least 3 good days worth of GM bashing. Im see however your ready willing and able to make up for lost time by starting up your bashing of the best production automobile engine thus far in history because of the location of its camshaft. Right on !

Well Im sure you think your Ford has quite the engine in it but you know what ? I know my cars have the best, with over 30 years of continous technology and reputation to prove it. Other manufacturers needed to reengineer because they just couldnt get it right.

Has Ford made a good V6 ? Has Ford made a great V6 ?

[regfootball]

District managers who are either lazy, or ignorant, don't work with the dealers to diversify the inventories and target market the individual units. This is a HUGE problem, little known to most. This is a tremendous oppportunity and in fact one area where I usually have inordinate success with dealers I consult. Proper inventory has an overwhelming effect on the sales rate, floorplan expense, and overall profitability. Now we're getting into other areas of The Plan beyond the first twenty steps released.

[post="56231"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

#21 fire the idiots who order the cars and fire the production folks who produce the cars no one wants

[regfootball]

You are correct GM's "new" cloth does suck. It didnt used to, it was quality, soft, durable velour available in a multitude of colors. But some idiots decided "new" was better because it was different that "old" and now for something like 10 years we have had this weird "cloth" in all of two colors, shades of gray and baby poop. Well at least it doesnt remind youngsters of the velour that was in mommy and daddys car.  :rolleyes:

w body proportions - well somewhere in this topic is stats from two competitors that show the Buick within an inch on most areas so I dont see whats dated except for the knowledge that its "old" In some instances the Buick had the best area.

What took you so long to get in on this GM bash fest Reg ? You missed out on at least 3 good days worth of GM bashing. Im see however your ready willing and able to make up for lost time by starting up your bashing of the best production automobile engine thus far in history because of the location of its camshaft. Right on !

Well Im sure you think your Ford has quite the engine in it but you know what ? I know my cars have the best, with over 30 years of continous technology and reputation to prove it. Other manufacturers needed to reengineer because they just couldnt get it right.  

Has Ford made a good V6 ? Has Ford made a great V6 ?

[post="56234"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

has GM? its ass is getting kicked around in the v6 department. what GM car under 30 grand can you get a COMPETITIVE v6 in? Edited December 10, 2005 by regfootball

[Guest buickman]

has GM?  its ass is getting kicked around in the v6 department.  what GM car under 30 grand can you get a COMPETITIVE v6 in?

[post="56302"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Lucerne and LaCrosse with 3800.

[Croc]

Lucerne and LaCrosse with 3800.

[post="56305"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

He said a competitive V6. The 3800 is no longer competitive because it lacks refinement. It might be reliable as anything out there, but it is rough. Gas mileage is also less than impressive.

[balthazar]

Sorry- it's not nearly so rough to turn away a potential buyer just because of that. Had a 3.8 in the driveway for 105K and it was absolutely competitive and completely livable and non-intrusive. I would wind it out regularly; I enjoyed the powerband it had. No- it would have to be a combination of overall attributes..... or a closed mind that would turn down the 3.8 specifically.

BTW- it also may be more reliable than anything out there. ;)

[Croc]

Agreed, but "good enough" isn't enough to win back buyers. People who have been jaded against domestics NITPICK the hell out of them while ignoring and rationalizing problems with the foreign car they are comparing it to. My mom does this. If GM wants conquest sales it needs to be as close to perfect as possible. Lucerne should have the 3.6 in it as the base engine, if only so it is as refined as the powerplant in the Avalon.

[Flybrian]

The 3800 gets excellent fuel economy. Don't take that away from it.

[The O.C.]

You're right about dealer inventory. Many old time franchisees don't understand what GM is trying to do by appealing to younger clients. It's really not the facotry's fault if the dealer doesn't know how to best order stock. A LaCrosse or Lucerne has the options available to make them desirable, now get the outlets to stock them that way. It can make all the difference to profitablility when the units turn quickly.

[post="56222"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

WRONG-O....! It IS the factory's fault in this case.....(or so says my local Buick dealer....who STILL doesn't have his first Lucerne in stock incidentally enough.)

My local Buick dealer told me that they get NO action on LaCrosses. He says IF Buick would give him more CXSs with the 3.6L, leather buckets, etc., he'd do much better. Apparently his Buick rep will not allocate him CXSs....he says they are in short supply. He has maybe one CXS on the lot at a time.

Therefore, he's stuck with ugly, geriatric bench-seat CXs, or pricey pushrod CXLs. Neither works in this market.

Even the 80-year-olds in Leisure World/Laguna Woods drive Accords and Camrys here....

[The O.C.]

w body proportions - well somewhere in this topic is stats from two competitors that show the Buick within an inch on most areas so I dont see whats dated except for the knowledge that its "old" In some instances the Buick had the best area.

[post="56234"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The "W" Body is a perfect example of why you can't just spout numbers as the truth.

Regardless of what the numbers say, if you get into an Impala, LaCrosse, or Grand Prix, the back seat room and comfort is substandard......especially considering the exterior bulk of the cars.

First of all, you sit low with your knees shooting straight up with minimal under- thigh support.

Secondly, the foot area below you gets extremely cramped as you try to get out of the car, or slide in. You cannot simply slide your foot sideways to get out....you have to twist your foot in all manner of contortions to swing your legs out of the car...then try to haul your butt up off the sunken bench seat.

Thirdly, there simply is not that much leg or knee room in the back.

The acutal width of the car....not to mention the inflated headroom offered by the distance from the sunken bench seat to the roof.....probably add to the dimensional numbers advantage. But it's not a real-world advantage.

Newer architectures like even the Malibu/G6 are more comfortable, real-world, for two people in the back seat than the W-Body. Edited December 10, 2005 by The O.C.

[The O.C.]

The 3800 gets excellent fuel economy. Don't take that away from it.

[post="56334"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ok guys.....THE POINT IS......(and I think Croc was trying to say this...)

The 3800 is old, dated, unrefined, and should be put to bed. It was great in its time....15-20 years ago.....when the imports weren't focusing on V6 or bigger engines.

Now, however, it's completed overshadowed.....by the competition.

Plus, you cannot argue the perception (perception BEING the key word....for right OR for wrong) gap that consumers have considering the value of the technology available in import V6s versus the "dated" 3800 pushrod architecture.....

That's the BIGGEST argument even....the perception. If the consumers you are trying to appeal to all believe that OHC/DOHC/multi-valve technology is superior and/or more desirable.....THAT'S what you better offer them or they won't consider your product.

Plus, modern DOHC/multi-valve technology has advanced far enough with features like VVT that any former low-end-torque advantage that GM's pushrod V6s offered is negligible at best. The Passat 3.6L (276hp) that I drove recently is a perfect example. It had almost too much torque off the line for the front wheels, yet was creamy in it's ability to rev quickly and never turned thrashy. Plus, they don't lose their breath as you climb the rev range....they continue to produce power much further up....should high-rpm acceleration be desired by the driver.....while low rpm tractability doesn't suffer at all.

[Croc]

But those subjective qualifications are what buyers are using to justify purchases of Toyotas.

[Guest buickman]

While no expert on Toyota sales, I highly doubt their average customer is sophisticated to the degree indicated. Rather, I surmise it is about attitude against the domestics, and a perceived image of quality generated by the import/transplants.

[Croc]

Actually, consumers don't have to be sophisticated at all. They just need to do what they do: sit in one, sit in the other, and decide which one seems like it has higher quality. It isn't hard and requires no college education, and it is surprisingly effective!

[Guest buickman]

Actually, consumers don't have to be sophisticated at all.  They just need to do what they do: sit in one, sit in the other, and decide which one seems like it has higher quality.  It isn't hard and requires no college education, and it is surprisingly effective!

[post="56402"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's understandable, but I was referring to engine technology. Wouldn't you agree though that today GM vehicles are as reliable, safe, and fuel efficient as the competition? I feel we need to make strides in marketing in order to shift perceptions giving us a shot at new business, and in dealer service to retain the business we have while increasing word of mouth.

[Croc]

Reliable? Yes. Safe? No. Minivans are decidedly lacking, even still. They need dual 5* ratings to be competitive. Fuel efficient? Depends on segment. Sometimes GM does pretty well, other times, like Aveo, it is woefully behind. GM needs more hybrid technology. DoD is a big step. Dealers need to be improved. Their level of service leaves a lot to be desired, even to long-term customers. Marketing is not a panacea, Buickman. You have yet to learn that. The overall quality of vehicles must improve and no amount of good marketing will fix the negative perceptions from having a cheap-looking product.

[Guest buickman]

Reliable?  Yes.

Safe? No.  Minivans are decidedly lacking, even still.  They need dual 5* ratings to be competitive.

Fuel efficient? Depends on segment.  Sometimes GM does pretty well, other times, like Aveo, it is woefully behind.  GM needs more hybrid technology.  DoD is a big step.

Dealers need to be improved.  Their level of service leaves a lot to be desired, even to long-term customers.

Marketing is not a panacea, Buickman.  You have yet to learn that.  The overall quality of vehicles must improve and no amount of good marketing will fix the negative perceptions from having a cheap-looking product.

[post="56422"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The product is not so easily improved. It requires periods of time and significant investment. My point is that changing the marketing will work now AND save money immediately. While we definitely need both, Return to Greatness can be implemented without delay, yielding much needed results and positive press, building momentum for the new offerings and increasing the odds of acceptance. Edited December 10, 2005 by buickman

[Flybrian]

Safe? No.  Minivans are decidedly lacking, even still.  They need dual 5* ratings to be competitive.

Um...no.
NHTSA Star ratings - 2006 vans
As you can see, the CSVs earn double five-star for frontal impact and 4/5 for front and rear side impact, respectively. Yes, quadruple five stars would be an improvement, but as it stands, they're on-par with Chrysler and Ford vans, all of which have 5/5/4/5 stars. They should have the extra star, yes, but 'decidedly-lacking'? No.

I believe the 4/5/4/5 ranking for the CSVs you're referring to was for the first NHTSA testers in 2005 as later 2005-06 vans have 5/5/4/5. This is a sign that GM saw a deficiency and improved on it.

Fuel efficient? Depends on segment.  Sometimes GM does pretty well, other times, like Aveo, it is woefully behind.  GM needs more hybrid technology.  DoD is a big step.

Aveo is bad in its segment, pure and simple. The 3.9l also seems to need improvement in some applications. But take a random midsize car such as the Grand Prix and look at the EPA ratings:
3.8l - 20/30
3.8l s/c - 19/28
5.3l - 18/27
Very good for its size and output.

Dealers need to be improved.  Their level of service leaves a lot to be desired, even to long-term customers.

This is true, especially among Chevrolet and certain Pontiac-GMC dealerships. Mind you, this doesn't mean offering foot massages and ditzy crap like that, rather, a pleasing environment with a knowledgable, low-pressure sales staff, appropriate amenities, and most importantly, an outstanding service department.

[Croc]

But Ford and Chrysler are hardly the benchmark vans in the segment. Honda Odyssey, Nissan Quest and even Kia Sedona get 5s all around. The Sienna did in 2004, when the new model bowed, but for some reason only gets 4 for the driver, both in 2005 and 2006. I doubt Toyota changed anything, but whatever. Point is, that GM is not competitive in that segment. --- Product takes time to improve, yes, but that is where the focus of the company needs to be. I just don't see where you think you can push inferior product on people better than through fire-sales. Price is the only thing GM can claim when the materials and build quality are lacking. Has GM gotten better? Well, yes. That said, they aren't there yet. Save the big marketing campaigns to get people into showrooms when the vehicles are actually deserving of the hype. Edited December 11, 2005 by Croc

[regfootball]

Lucerne and LaCrosse with 3800.

[post="56305"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

nice. it don't even crack 200 hp in the lucerne. how the hell are you supposed to sell that car with a 50-70hp deficit and expect any market impact?

[regfootball]

He said a competitive V6.  The 3800 is no longer competitive because it lacks refinement.  It might be reliable as anything out there, but it is rough.  Gas mileage is also less than impressive.

[post="56312"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

reliable, assuming we aren't talking about having to blow a grand to replace a manifold gasket

[regfootball]

WRONG-O....!  It IS the factory's fault in this case.....(or so says my local Buick dealer....who STILL doesn't have his first Lucerne in stock incidentally enough.)

My local Buick dealer told me that they get NO action on LaCrosses.  He says IF Buick would give him more CXSs with the 3.6L, leather buckets, etc., he'd do much better.  Apparently his Buick rep will not allocate him CXSs....he says they are in short supply.  He has maybe one CXS on the lot at a time.

Therefore, he's stuck with ugly, geriatric bench-seat CXs, or pricey pushrod CXLs.  Neither works in this market.

Even the 80-year-olds in Leisure World/Laguna Woods drive Accords and Camrys here....

[post="56335"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

maybe if they made the 3.6 standard, put decent buckets in it, with an autostick stype 5 or 6 speed tranny, well, and add about 4 inches of leg room (which you could try to get from the enormously out of proportion hood length or front overhang) and sold it a CX price levels.....Buick and GM have never been smart enough or willing enough to try that approach.

A college graduate who has gotten their first real job and is making big bucks now...they want to buy a car. these are the types that love to buy cars and spend money. you honestly think someone like that wants a COLUMN SHIFTER, BENCH SEAT, and lazy motor?

Even the 50 year olds are looking for engines with zing and a coddling cabin.

[regfootball]

Ok guys.....THE POINT IS......(and I think Croc was trying to say this...)

The 3800 is old, dated, unrefined, and should be put to bed.  It was great in its time....15-20 years ago.....when the imports weren't focusing on V6 or bigger engines.

Now, however, it's completed overshadowed.....by the competition.

Plus, you cannot argue the perception (perception BEING the key word....for right OR for wrong) gap that consumers have considering the value of the technology available in import V6s versus the "dated" 3800 pushrod architecture.....

That's the BIGGEST argument even....the perception.  If the consumers you are trying to appeal to all believe that OHC/DOHC/multi-valve technology is superior and/or more desirable.....THAT'S what you better offer them or they won't consider your product.

Plus, modern DOHC/multi-valve technology has advanced far enough with features like VVT that any former low-end-torque advantage that GM's pushrod V6s offered is negligible at best.  The Passat 3.6L (276hp) that I drove recently is a perfect example.  It had almost too much torque off the line for the front wheels, yet was creamy in it's ability to rev quickly and never turned thrashy.  Plus, they don't lose their breath as you climb the rev range....they continue to produce power much further up....should high-rpm acceleration be desired by the driver.....while low rpm tractability doesn't suffer at all.

[post="56344"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

said passat cracked 6 seconds in a C/D test. there's no lack of low end torque there.

[regfootball]

The average car buyer doesn't know about or even give a rats about pushrods, VVT, how many valves per cylinder an engine possesses or even how old an engines architecture might be. They are mostly concerned about how well the car drives and how reliable it is. For it's intended purposes, in this case being the base engine, the 3.8 works just fine. Don't like it? There are other engine options offered. Calling an engine "old, dated, unrefined" is purey subjective.

[post="56350"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

not on a base LaCrosse. not even as a standalone option. they need to offer the 3.6 in the CX as a standalone. Edited December 11, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

The product is not so easily improved. It requires periods of time and significant investment. My point is that changing the marketing will work now AND save money immediately. While we definitely need both, Return to Greatness can be implemented without delay, yielding much needed results and positive press, building momentum for the new offerings and increasing the odds of acceptance.

[post="56430"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

if you want to stay in business you find a way to get the product out in shorter time, faster, and better all around. Toyota is able to get a project out in 24 months now i believe. it takes GM that long to determine if they should turn a show car into a production model. by the time they decide on anything, they are 4 years in and still need 4 years to do it.

"The product is not so easily improved"

better pack it in buickman, and start looking for that toyota dealer to work for. if GM wants to keep the doors open, they need to start to figure out how to match toyota tit for tat on features, engines, performance, all sorts of stuff, and they'll need to allocate $$$$$ to fund R&D and production processes to be able to get a car project done from start to finsih in 24 months, or less. evolve or die.

that's what your Buick guys need to hear from you.

it used to mean something to own a Buick. Our family had a bunch of them. at some point, they seem to have become irrelevant. The Lucerne is nice, but really its not going to make a big impact. Buick ought to have another 3-4 new models in the hopper for the next 18 months. BUT, they won't. Edited December 11, 2005 by regfootball

[balthazar]

But Ford and Chrysler are hardly the benchmark vans in the segment.  Honda Odyssey, Nissan Quest and even Kia Sedona get 5s all around.  The Sienna did in 2004, when the new model bowed, but for some reason only gets 4 for the driver, both in 2005 and 2006.  I doubt Toyota changed anything, but whatever. Point is, that GM is not competitive in that segment.

In what mental health asylum is a kia a benchmark but a Chrysler isn't? Obviously the same one where a toyota with a 4/5 rating is a benchmark but a 5/5 GM isn't.

Save the big marketing campaigns to get people into showrooms when the vehicles are actually deserving of the hype.

Same world?: Sit back, do nothing, pay more doing it. 'Practices that have been proven both regionally & nationally are not going to work because I personally don't like the guy pitching them, and the situation in general is so terrifically rotten I would rather keep methods exactly the same without trying even a single step offered.... because.'

Shouldn't mercedes throttle back their dealership experience & marketing efforts to better match what their vehicles "deserve"? How about mitsu simply stopping all advertising cold turkey and openly slapping the customers who wander into their dealers... to match what their vehicles "deserve"? What is this; business or a cookie for cleaning your room?

Just.... wow.

[razoredge]

I didnt read this whole page but there are a few things I wanted to comment on.

[QUOTE] has GM?

Dumb statement

[QUOTE]its ass is getting kicked around in the v6 department. what GM car under 30 grand can you get a COMPETITIVE v6 in?


Yes the competitions HO engines have finally gotten to the level of the HO SC L67/L32, bravo, bravo :rolleyes: . They have also just finally surpassed its fuel mileage, which they do deserve a Bravo for. I have seen a few sedan tests and sorry but the competition isnt all that.... So the Camry's a hot rod is it ?

[QUOTE]He said a competitive V6. The 3800 is no longer competitive because it lacks refinement. It might be reliable as anything out there, but it is rough.

Correct, the 38 has been overdue refinement by 5 years. Its been ten years now since the intro of the Series II {95} and OBD II {96} Rough? BS, behind is correct, but rough is simply BS, its over the dam anyhow but calling it rough is just BS and will only lead to many wasted hours on this forum when presented to me.

[QUOTE]Gas mileage is also less than impressive.

No, gas mileage is impressive but has just now been surpassed by a few of the others.

[QUOTE]Agreed, but "good enough" isn't enough to win back buyers. People who have been jaded against domestics NITPICK the hell out of them while ignoring and rationalizing problems with the foreign car they are comparing it to. My mom does this. If GM wants conquest sales it needs to be as close to perfect as possible.

This is true. The 38 was GM nearly perfect V6 and only recently has been surpassed by a few of the competition..in its NA form not its forced form.

[QUOTE]Lucerne should have the 3.6 in it as the base engine, if only so it is as refined as the powerplant in the Avalon.

Agreed but there seems to be some problem with an abundance of this engine still. Perhaps GM would be wize to get them on production line in AMERICA {where the market is !} utilizing some of that stagnent helps its paying anyhow ??????????? !!!!! Naw we'll wait on that too. :unsure:

[QUOTE] powerplant in the Avalon.

Come on whats that Avalon got ?

[QUOTE]My local Buick dealer told me that they get NO action on LaCrosses. He says IF Buick would give him more CXSs with the 3.6L, leather buckets, etc., he'd do much better. Apparently his Buick rep will not allocate him CXSs....he says they are in short supply. He has maybe one CXS on the lot at a time.[/QUOTE]
Correct, somethings wrong with the 3.6 as I just stated, we need to build them here for this market, I dont care what anyone says. Its like GM needs 300,000 of them yesterday. [I/]

[QUOTE] Even the 80-year-olds in Leisure World/Laguna Woods drive Accords and Camrys here....

Of course they do, its Lagunafornia where you are shuned for driving American built cars.

W bodies -

I know I had a 91 Regal Limited, great little personal car, wouldnt want to sit in back seat, I tried it, Im long legged and showing wear. Seat was nice enough for comfort but hey its a small car. My daughter liked it but her other choice at that time was the big LSS and theres just no comparision for back seat room. She did say the older 90 Regency was the best we've had yet. She was origionally spoiled by two NYers and the 86 LeSabre Limited, while being a two door it does have ample rear room. Wonder how that back seat of one of them 90's Accords was ? :lol: :AH-HA_wink: One can see from the styling how Toyota accomplished great rear head & leg room. Id be happy with a compromise, I dont like the styling results much.

[QUOTE] The 3800 is old, dated, unrefined, and should be put to bed. It was great in its time....15-20 years ago.....when the imports weren't focusing on V6 or bigger engines.

once again its currently 10 years old, it is not primitive by construction or refinement, its just been ignored because they have spent the R&D elsewhere. It is being retired and we need not listen to a bunch of you degrading it like it came from the dark ages. So long as you do we will continue to waste all this space on the forum. GM made piles of money selling - great and highly appreaciated cars with that engine. Do not degrade it, it has only recently been surpassed and that is in its NA form, not its SC form, which is the equivelent of the refinement others have done to get to that level....Problem ? 92 octane gas $

[QUOTE]Now, however, it's completed overshadowed.....by the competition.

BS same as above : 260/280 - 21/28 - 200,000+ is not an overshadow by any means.

[QUOTE]nice. it don't even crack 200 hp in the lucerne. how the hell are you supposed to sell that car with a 50-70hp deficit and expect any market impact?

bo log na , so whats in that Camry again ? 190. Whats in the Ford ? What one is it that has like 225 but only 215 TQ or something kinda wimpy like that. BS, BS, BS !
So where these 50-70hp surplus engines :blink: 350Z ? Oh, did you forget that the L32 was 260/280 :unsure: :rolleyes: to quote my Man Robert Plant "talk , talk, talk "

So just leave it alone. Its an old hard worked man, going into retirement and it deserves respect. Calling it for what it is, is one thing but calling it what its not is another. You cant back it up, you can only spout exagerations, insults and obvious predjudice. It has not been perfect, it has not been flawless, it has been retooled radically 3 times since 85 with a few upgrades midterm . It has not been retooled or recieved any real developement in 10 years. Its HO version will run against your favorite V6 and hold its own.

So really whats the point ? Really ? Edited December 11, 2005 by razoredge

[regfootball]

point is, its gone soon and maybe then GM can move on, and up in the v6 world. it was great in its day. by 2000 or so it was not up to par.

[razoredge]

point me to what was better in 2000 and not some high 30's Audi or whatnot. And your "move on " is nothing more than another typical Reg dig. They have been doing R & D elsewere for a long time. Some funds that came from sales of multiple vehicals that utilized this engine. SO ONCE AGAIN THE L67 AT 240/280 & THE L32 AT 260/280 ARE STILL VERY MUCH UP TO PAR... AT THEIR STOCK TUNING LEVEL THEY ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE AND MANY ARE PUTTING UP TO AND OVER 300hp DOWN ON THE ROAD FOR A FEW MORE THOUSAND AND SOME FUN TINKERIN IN THE SHOP GET OVER IT REG, YOU HAVE NO SOLID FOOTING UNDER YOUR NEGITIVE STATEMENTS ON THE 38. SORRY FIGHT A MORE IMPORTANT BATTLE.

[Croc]

razor chill out. many members here agree with both reg and myself. the 3800 has done its duty, and needs to be gone. GM is already using its replacement, and impala and monte carlo already have it. its time to put it in buick and pontiac now. The cars are already saddled with being W-bodies and the inherent interior packaging issues with that platform, why put them at a disadvantage with the 3800? I figure GM should at the very least not have an unrefined engine in an dated platform. Might as well get a few more sales by putting in the better engine so the cars at least have more of a selling point. Oh well, W is on its way out, and it was another good platfom.

[Guest buickman]

Product takes time to improve, yes, but that is where the focus of the company needs to be.  I just don't see where you think you can push inferior product on people better than through fire-sales.  Price is the only thing GM can claim when the materials and build quality are lacking.  Has GM gotten better?  Well, yes.  That said, they aren't there yet.

Save the big marketing campaigns to get people into showrooms when the vehicles are actually deserving of the hype.

[post="56445"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

"Fire sales" are exactly what I'm complaining about. Under Return to Greatness GM would not advertise price, payment, or rebate. The total emphasis would be on features, benefits and lifestyle. Market the product, not the deal. Again, I feel GM products are competitive and would sell at a much higher rate if properly presented. The steak is OK, we need to sell the sizzle. Edited December 11, 2005 by buickman

[cmattson]

Market the product, not the deal.

How concise - and on the money. You can't get any better than that.

[The O.C.]

The average car buyer doesn't know about or even give a rats about pushrods, VVT, how many valves per cylinder an engine possesses or even how old an engines architecture might be. They are mostly concerned about how well the car drives and how reliable it is. For it's intended purposes, in this case being the base engine, the 3.8 works just fine. Don't like it? There are other engine options offered. Calling an engine "old, dated, unrefined" is purey subjective.

[post="56350"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's where you are wrong.

Customers may or may not be tech-savvy enough to understand what "pushrod" means compared to "DOHC", etc...

BUT....they DO know when they test drive a car how the engine performs....is it quiet? Is it responsive when merging on the freeway? Does it sound "expensive?" Does it rev freely? How does it pull away from a stoplight? How is overall NVH from the drivetrain?

They don't need to understand the dictionary meaning of the terms.....they just need to be able to experience how the "up to date" technology improves the driving experience.

Also.....if all the "new" technology really doesn't mean anything.....and customers could "give a rats" about VVT, pushrods, etc.....other than a few exceptions (DCX's "HEMI" V8)..........WHY is GM the only holdout on this uncompetitive engine architecture? WHY are they the only ones to continue to develop mainstream V6 engines off this architecture?

[The O.C.]

[quote name='razoredge' date='Dec 10 2005, 11:02 PM']
I didnt read this whole page but there are a few things I wanted to comment on.
Correct, somethings wrong with the 3.6 as I just stated, we need to build them here for this market, I dont care what anyone says. Its like GM needs 300,000 of them yesterday. [I/]

[QUOTE] Even the 80-year-olds in Leisure World/Laguna Woods drive Accords and Camrys here....

Of course they do, its Lagunafornia where you are shuned for driving American built cars.

W bodies -

I know I had a 91 Regal Limited, great little personal car, wouldnt want to sit in back seat, I tried it, Im long legged and showing wear. Seat was nice enough for comfort but hey its a small car. My daughter liked it but her other choice at that time was the big LSS and theres just no comparision for back seat room. She did say the older 90 Regency was the best we've had yet. She was origionally spoiled by two NYers and the 86 LeSabre Limited, while being a two door it does have ample rear room. Wonder how that back seat of one of them 90's Accords was ? :lol: :AH-HA_wink: One can see from the styling how Toyota accomplished great rear head & leg room. Id be happy with a compromise, I dont like the styling results much.

[QUOTE] The 3800 is old, dated, unrefined, and should be put to bed. It was great in its time....15-20 years ago.....when the imports weren't focusing on V6 or bigger engines.

once again its currently 10 years old, it is not primitive by construction or refinement, its just been ignored because they have spent the R&D elsewhere. It is being retired and we need not listen to a bunch of you degrading it like it came from the dark ages. So long as you do we will continue to waste all this space on the forum. GM made piles of money selling - great and highly appreaciated cars with that engine. Do not degrade it, it has only recently been surpassed and that is in its NA form, not its SC form, which is the equivelent of the refinement others have done to get to that level....Problem ? 92 octane gas $

[QUOTE]Now, however, it's completed overshadowed.....by the competition.

BS same as above : 260/280 - 21/28 - 200,000+ is not an overshadow by any means.

[QUOTE]nice. it don't even crack 200 hp in the lucerne. how the hell are you supposed to sell that car with a 50-70hp deficit and expect any market impact?

bo log na , so whats in that Camry again ? 190. Whats in the Ford ? What one is it that has like 225 but only 215 TQ or something kinda wimpy like that. BS, BS, BS !
So where these 50-70hp surplus engines :blink: 350Z ? Oh, did you forget that the L32 was 260/280 :unsure: :rolleyes: to quote my Man Robert Plant "talk , talk, talk "

So just leave it alone. Its an old hard worked man, going into retirement and it deserves respect. Calling it for what it is, is one thing but calling it what its not is another. You cant back it up, you can only spout exagerations, insults and obvious predjudice. It has not been perfect, it has not been flawless, it has been retooled radically 3 times since 85 with a few upgrades midterm . It has not been retooled or recieved any real developement in 10 years. Its HO version will run against your favorite V6 and hold its own.

So really whats the point ? Really ?

[post="56688"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]

No....the Camry's NOT a hotrod.....

BUT that "low-power" 190hp Camry ran 0-60 in 7.6secs (C&D 12-05.) C&D's original test of the V6 Malibu LT got o-60 in 7.9secs.

Hmmm....maybe the Camry's FIVE-speed automatic helped compensate for the small lack of power compared to Malibu's 3.5L...? Edited December 11, 2005 by The O.C.

[Guest buickman]

How concise - and on the money.  You can't get any better than that.

[post="56750"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

In spite of my best efforts, and those of others, LaNeve, Gerosa, and Dewar continue their erroneous ways as if on a chosen path of self-destruction. The tried and untrue "Fire Sales" have virtually brought GM to it's knees and greatly contributed to the rise of the Japanese and Koreans. These incompetent executives MUST be replaced and Wagoner held responsible for allowing them to destroy brand equity, lose market share perhaps permanently, and create pathetic results in North America leading to thousands of job losses. The resulting impact of such idiocy as Red Tag and GMS reverberates throughout the national economy, and in the end is contributing to the erosion of America's middle class. Few see the true cause of the suffering in communities who are forced to close schools, reduce police and fire protection, and otherwise deal with lost tax revenue. Read today's www.detnews.com and see the effect on Flint, Michigan. I'm not saying the union is blameless, however the real culprits are those who ride as the elevators rise above Jefferson Avenue in Motown. Edited December 11, 2005 by buickman

[razoredge]

Its 3/10 of a second on a family sedan. I actually cant invision or feel 3/10 of a second, its kinda a small fragment, I believe people make to much of this, unless GM has something fast like the GXP, or the comp G then its not worth mentioning the 10ths of a second faster. Im willing to bet this Camry is geared much lower than the OHV 3.5 Gear ratios gain alot of time fast. When GM gets its 6 sp for FWDs done, they could use lower final drive, thereby helping acceleration and 6th could acheive = final ratio at tires to the current 4 sp. It could help if ti doesnt consume power, but it wont help milage as everyone thinks or hopes for. My opinion of course. Time will tell. Mercedes own write up on thier 6 or 7? stated that it did little for mileage but mainly helped overall performance. I wish GM would put slap shift in all these autos on that 6sp. That way in hilly areas like mine you could pick that pulling gear, instantly, before the dog down and... the ... pedal adjustment to get the kick down and... then it upshifts again but your really not ready... with more hill to come.... it really is a problem. I think engines breath better and run more effeciently when pulling at steady unlabored higher RPM's than dogged down in the wrong gear being fed way more gas then needed to get the job done.

[razoredge]

razor chill out.  many members here agree with both reg and myself.  the 3800 has done its duty, and needs to be gone.  GM is already using its replacement, and impala and monte carlo already have it.  its time to put it in buick and pontiac now.  The cars are already saddled with being W-bodies and the inherent interior packaging issues with that platform, why put them at a disadvantage with the 3800?  I figure GM should at the very least not have an unrefined engine in an dated platform.  Might as well get a few more sales by putting in the better engine so the cars at least have more of a selling point.  Oh well, W is on its way out, and it was another good platfom.

[post="56730"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Dont tell me to chill out and start right back up again. Duh !!!
Did you read my post ???? Did you ??? I agreed with you on what you said because you did not take oppertunity to throw dirt on the great engine. Reg on the other hand has always takeing every oppertunity to do so, as if in some twilight zone where Reg knows things about this engine that even those that own them do not know of, nor have of seen of. Its BS I covered my points the 38 points very well and very tactfully in my posts.

Christ ! everything you wrote after the first two sentences corresponds with what I said and wrote, but NO !!!!!!!! you wanna come and tell me how to act, then once again throw in one final dig on the engine "needs to be gone". Just leave it the F alone and I will, ITS THAT SIMPLE

There is a 38 out there that will run with all but the very best of the best highperformance V6's. OK!!!!!!!!!!!! GOT IT ???????????

!

[Croc]

Why are you taking it so personally? IT IS AN ENGINE! Seriously, chill out. :rolleyes:

[Flybrian]

Razor, calm down. Seriously. Never thought I'd say this, but let's get back to talking about 'The Plan' 9 from Outer Space.

[regfootball]

what bothers me about why the 3800 was so celebrated is because it was 'reliable' as if to suggest 'its rare that a GM engine was ever relaibel so man that this thing can last more than 80,000 miles without teardown really kicks ass!' as if doing such warranted a medal or trophy or something. Like no one would expect anyone to build acar with an engine that would last awhile. i mean, the asian competitors built reliable engine after reliable and complex engine and we have celebrate the fact that GM can build ONE stinking engine that outlives your payment book? In deifying this average engine we've also come to include suggestions that the thing was a miracle performer also. It was a PRETTY GOOD engine that unfortunately was left out to pasture and became dated a few years ago. I've driven like 10 cars with the 3800 or some variant and I just never saw what any of the fuss was about. The good mpg was more than offest by its slow revving, growly nature, and huge footprint under the hood. GM move on please. why this thing is in the Lucerne speaks volumes about what sort of KNUCKLEHEADS are planning product at GM and the Buick division. STILL. Edited December 11, 2005 by regfootball

[Croc]

People don't ask for the 3800 by name. If GM suddenly switched and only put the 3.6 in all the 3800 cars, ten bucks says fewer than 15% of buyers would notice and care.

[Flybrian]

This is growing more and more circular. Some people like the 3800 and are sad to see it go. Some people could care less and want more HF engines. Bottom line - 3800 was a fantastic engine and still is, but its time has arguably come and gone. And whatever we say here, it won't stop GM from trimming its availability back to the point where its replaced by something else. Annnnnd we're done.

[evok]

The Flint, Mich., North 3800 engine facility ("Factory 36") will cease production in 2008 This was buried in the Nov. 21 PR outline the plant closures. Edited December 11, 2005 by evok

[Croc]

Sweet!