GM is being squeezed, no doubt, but these June sales numbers in comparison to last June are the kinds of numbers the media doesn't talk about. Why?
Chevrolet Malibu total sales were up 95 percent with retail sales up 129 percent
Cobalt sales were up 37 percent total and 27 percent retail
HHR was up 39 percent total and 70 percent retail
Equinox was up 64 percent total and 42 percent retail
Suburban and Tahoe were both up in total sales - 13 and 1 percent respectively.
2004 2500 GMC Savanna 6.0 / 3.73
2001 Mallard 30E
Wife,
Triplets born 10-14-02 (2 girls, one boy)
Older daughter born in 1985
Choc lab named Kia (No, NOT after the car!) http://mywebpages.comcast.net/babies3/index.htm
8.1 Van wrote: The only person under 40 years old driving a Buick is Tiger Woods because they pay him millions to do so.
My wife is under 40 and loves her Buick. (It's a Grand National.)
It's also a GAS HOG going on 30 years old.......what's your point except to clearly troll it?
IIRC, those 80s Grand Nationals were powered by turbo charged v6 engines. I can't be certain, and somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I would think it would actually be pretty good on fuel(compared to a v8 engine of that era) unless you drove it hard all the time.
2005 Surveyor SV-291 Tows smooth as silk!
1995 Dodge Ram 1500 Laramie SLT 4x4 5.9L V8 low miles, It ain't pretty, but it's paid for!
8.1 Van wrote: The only person under 40 years old driving a Buick is Tiger Woods because they pay him millions to do so.
My wife is under 40 and loves her Buick. (It's a Grand National.)
It's also a GAS HOG going on 30 years old.......what's your point except to clearly troll it?
IIRC, those 80s Grand Nationals were powered by turbo charged v6 engines. I can't be certain, and somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I would think it would actually be pretty good on fuel(compared to a v8 engine of that era) unless you drove it hard all the time.
This fellow maintains he gets 17 mpg-city and 25 mpg highway, not bad for a relatively heavy, powerful car back then.
My non turbo Buick with it's non aspirated Buick 3800 V6 (same engine family, not turboed) gets good mileage, especially on the highway for a heavy car (3600 lbs.) The Buick 3800 90 degree V6 is known as a fuel sipper for it's power,and cubic capacity. Too bad GM is killing production this summer. This engine has been in production since the Fall of 1961 and is regarded as one of the top engines of the 20 th century-JD Power Award.
I've always been a fan of this long made, durable, versatile engine with plenty of potential for making power. I guess you can tell.
We have a 2003 Buick Regal GS Joseph Abboud Special Edition with the Supercharged series II 3.8 Liter V6. My wife drives it and we are both under 30 years old.
I had a 1994 Buick Century with the 3.8 Liter V6 that I got in 1997 when I was 16 years old. I abused the snot out of that car - it already had 120,000 miles when I got it - and it lasted 5 years and another 115,000 miles before the transmission went out, which was more due to years of teenage-type driving and a lack of maintenance than anything inherently wrong with the car. I could list out the abuses that it endured, but it's best to leave it to your imagination - the list is long and embarrassing, and if my dad ever saw it he'd probably still tan my hide.
The 2003 Regal gets about 22 mpg around town and got a solid 31 mpg (hand calculated to verify the DIC) on our July 4th round trip to Tyler, Texas. These results are typical from our experience with the car. . . if you stay out of the gas pedal, you get rewarded with great economy. That good of mileage and it can still tear off of the line like it's on fire. . . I shocked a friend with its acceleration last week. I guarantee it'll put a smile on your face. The power from the supercharger is incredible and immediately available.
Buick makes fine cars with great styling, excellent performance, quality comfort, fair economy, and enjoyable rides for a reasonable cost. Just because they're not popular doesn't mean they aren't good.
My wife's grandparents just bought a 2008 Buick Lucerne CXL with the Northstar V8, and it's fantastic.
The problem is the branding. . . admittedly a lot of people my age are shocked when they finally get in a newer Buick to see that they are sporty and luxurious. The ones who don't need to impress strangers with a flashy hood ornament will actually consider buying one.
2005 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Crew Cab SB LS 6.0L 4x4 4.10
DW, DD (born in May, 2007), and me
fickman wrote: We have a 2003 Buick Regal GS Joseph Abboud Special Edition with the Supercharged series II 3.8 Liter V6. My wife drives it and we are both under 30 years old.
I had a 1994 Buick Century with the 3.8 Liter V6 that I got in 1997 when I was 16 years old. I abused the snot out of that car - it already had 120,000 miles when I got it - and it lasted 5 years and another 115,000 miles before the transmission went out, which was more due to years of teenage-type driving and a lack of maintenance than anything inherently wrong with the car. I could list out the abuses that it endured, but it's best to leave it to your imagination - the list is long and embarrassing, and if my dad ever saw it he'd probably still tan my hide.
The 2003 Regal gets about 22 mpg around town and got a solid 31 mpg (hand calculated to verify the DIC) on our July 4th round trip to Tyler, Texas. These results are typical from our experience with the car. . . if you stay out of the gas pedal, you get rewarded with great economy. That good of mileage and it can still tear off of the line like it's on fire. . . I shocked a friend with its acceleration last week. I guarantee it'll put a smile on your face. The power from the supercharger is incredible and immediately available.
Buick makes fine cars with great styling, excellent performance, quality comfort, fair economy, and enjoyable rides for a reasonable cost. Just because they're not popular doesn't mean they aren't good.
My wife's grandparents just bought a 2008 Buick Lucerne CXL with the Northstar V8, and it's fantastic.
The problem is the branding. . . admittedly a lot of people my age are shocked when they finally get in a newer Buick to see that they are sporty and luxurious. The ones who don't need to impress strangers with a flashy hood ornament will actually consider buying one.
As a fellow Buick sedan owner ('07 Allure (LaCrosse in the States)with the Buick 3800 V6, my experience has been the same. I don't have the turbo or the supercharged version, but even the standard fuel injection model can move. In fact GM spec'd the Buick 3800 engine for the Impala Police Interceptor package from 2000 to 2005.
I do know that those 80s Grand Nationals are highly sought after now as collector's items. That turbo v6 was very fast in those cars, especially considering the obvious lack of performance from most engines during the late 70s and most of the 80s. GM should have stuck that engine in the Monte Carlo SS of that era as well IMHO.
That V6 Grand National GNX was faster than the Corvette and Camaro were that year. I believe that was 1987. Some lucky sap in school had a black one with red stripes. Beautiful car.
GMC_Man wrote: Interesting...I'm sure GMC is in there with Chevy and Cadillac. Why would they sell or who would want to buy a division who's intials are General Motors Corporation? And seeing how the are all made on the same lines as Chevys.
This speaks to a point I've made in many conversations: Why on earth do US auto manufacturers insist on maintaining makes and models with nearly identical features?
Daimler Chrysler in recent years killed off Plymouth for that very reason. Why have the Plymouth Voyager, Dodge Grand Caravan, and Chrysler Town & Country when they are the exact same vehicle with slightly different trim, bells, and whistles? It didn't make sense because the 3 brands competed against each other. The same was true of Oldsmobile vs Buick. That's one of the reasons Olds is gone, too much feature overlap.
While I don't like to see US jobs disappear, the manufactures need to take a long hard look at where they are beating themselves up and eliminate those conflicts. For example, why on earth does GM still make Chevy and GMC trucks Yes they vary slightly in appearance and features, but mechanically they are the exact same truck. The same holds true for Ford and Mercury SUV's and cars.
Buyers want choice, but they also want value. Make one vehicle, give it multiple options, and eliminate the fat.
KJ
The same is true for Toyota and Lexus, Nissan and Infiniti. Some people are "upper class" and would rather drive a Lincoln Navigator vs. a pedestrian Ford Expedition. Sad but true.
NickG wrote: GM is being squeezed, no doubt, but these June sales numbers in comparison to last June are the kinds of numbers the media doesn't talk about. Why?
Because GM threw in the kitchen sink to get those sales. If you were in the market for a GM, you bought one in June. The incentives were huge. 0% APR, big discounts, incredible incentives.
So the rationale is that the buyers are done. Sales in the coming weeks and months will dwindle to nothing. GM didnt bring many new buyers to the table, they just pushed this year's buyers to buy in June.
Personally, I like the Hummer line. To me, GM vehicles are all boring and the same. Hummer is not practical, but i bought one because it is kind of cool and different. I bought the H3 because the H2 is just too big to drive around town.
If I wanted a boring SUV, GM has that entire line-up covered. I would have thought GM had good margins on the Hummer, but if they are losing money from it, they got to get rid of it. It is do or die for GM.
Offline
Yes they vary slightly in appearance and features, but mechanically they are the exact same truck. The same holds true for Ford and Mercury SUV's and cars.
