- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
It is a very common problem with almost all modern vehicles. Get above 35 MPH, and it can become almost unbearable. I'm fully expecting the super-slippery 2013 Fusion to be among the worst.
RE: Everything Else
Well, with a distinctive Ford bias and a seemingly narrow view of how the automotive industry operates, I wouldn't expect a favorable opinion of GM. Well, when have I ever?
Getting your panties in a bunch over the Chevrolet Impala, which has in some way/shape/form been around since 1988 really sums it all up. It is a car that has proven itself to be boring, but reliable. They're cheap to sell, and even cheaper to make. There's nothing wrong with GM selling them, in fact, they sell quite a few. But, it's getting replaced for 2014. Time to let the old G-Body rest. Finally...
But this dances around the basic idea of your post... Killing Buick.
Buick was allowed to live for one basic reason; The Chinese market is far too important for GM to kill a best-selling brand internationally. Beyond that, when it comes to executing a brand strategy in the US, Buick better served the direction that GM wanted to take than keeping Pontiac or Saturn alive.
As others have pointed out, without a brand to cover the differences between Chevrolet and Cadillac, GM would stand to lose a good amount of market share to other low-lying luxury marques. Buick earns it's keep by specifically targeting middle and upper-middle class individuals who want a somewhat luxurious car at reasonable prices. By all sense of measure, the new Buicks have been very well-received in the press, and by the public. The strong sales of the Enclave have really surpassed expectations, the LaCrosse is doing well enough, and with the Regal and Verano seeking to round out the table, things thus far have been pretty good in 2012.
Thing is, GM would need to fill in 20,000 or so sales per month if Buick was gone. Given their target audience, level of luxury, and type of performance... That's 20,000 units of sale that immediately go to Acura, Volvo and Lincoln. Take in the international numbers, and it is financial suicide for GM.
As for GMC, well, that one is more of a marketing strategy than anything else. The entire existence of GMC is a byproduct of a century or more of marketing at GM that proposed that their trucks were more capable than that of what was offered at Chevrolet. Today, it is more or less that their trucks are more luxurious. If you sit down and attempt to think of Buick and GMC as a single brand (as they are only sold together at Buick/GMC dealers), it covers a pretty wide swath of vehicles in the same way that Chevrolet does.
You're more than welcome to not like what GM is doing, but the simple fact of the matter is that their vehicles are selling, and they're making a boat-load of money. Between Ford, GM and Fiat-Chrysler, we're getting distinctively American cars that are actually better buys than the majority of their foreign counterparts. We haven't been able to say that for more than a generation... Ford is doing a fantastic job of being innovative with their design and technology, Fiat-Chrysler is making some fantastic Italian hybrids that are far more interesting than other offerings. Yes, GM is taking the safe route. It is boring, but it guarantees sales. They have their bases covered, and I can't fault them with that.
There is a time and place for a car like the Verano Turbo, and this is pretty much it. With Acura debuting the ILX, and Audi introducing a new A3, the luxurious compact market is about to get very competitive.
No buffeting there. Of course there is a lot of wind noise when you open a car window but the Lacrosse is a different beast. It's not so bad for the front windows but the rear ones are awful. Sounds like your face is being pressed against a subwoofer at a Skrillex concert.
