|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Wait, what? I don't disagree with you that Buick is profitable in the United States, but Audi is profitable and has been for the last two or three years. Audi is around in the United States because the Group hasn't ever seen a slice of the pie they don't want to get a piece of, and it makes money. Eh, maybe. http://wardsauto.com/news-amp-analysis/vw-nears-profit-us-targets-more-north-american-production
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Eh, maybe. Audi is actually more successful in the US in terms of profitability than Volkswagen. I had thought that the Audi brand was profitable in 2011 but evidently that's not the case. Still, directly in the article you quoted is a sentence stating that Audi was profitable in the United States last year. Edit: wait, I missed the date on that article. It said that Audi was profitable in 2010. So how are you "maybe"-ing me?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
I see the new Buicks quite a bit here in Northern California and it's not just old folks. They are good looking cars/suvs and people are buying them now that have probably been in a Honda/Toyota the last 10-20 years. Plus Shaq and Manning.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Yeah I see them around in decent enough numbers on Long Island and likewise not exclusively driven by geriatrics.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Buick's average buyer's age has dropped something wild like a decade in the last few years. It's not too far off most other higher-price brands and still going down. This article says its average owner is 7 years younger than in 2007: http://autos.aol.com/article/buick-enters-the-modern-age-with-a-fortified-lineup/
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Plus Shaq and Manning. This. The Peyton Manning add actually made me want to check out a Verano  The "You don't know Buick" campaign using celebrities is pretty clever, I wonder if they're going to keep it up with different celebs.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
leica posted:This. The Peyton Manning add actually made me want to check out a Verano You should. I test drove one a few months ago and was impressed. Seriously quiet and comfy; hustled it over some train tracks and it soaked the bumps up no problem. It's not fast, but that just doesn't matter when you're driving it. Actually preferred it to an Audi A4 2.0T that I test drove around the same time
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure they just built one one around Shaq and he's sitting in the rear seats trying to look comfortable.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Audi is actually more successful in the US in terms of profitability than Volkswagen. I had thought that the Audi brand was profitable in 2011 but evidently that's not the case. Still, directly in the article you quoted is a sentence stating that Audi was profitable in the United States last year. I meant "maybe you're right and they have started turning a profit within the last year or 2. But anyway it was just an off the cuff remark and Buick is still > Audi. Power figures for the new 4.3l V6 truck engine.  quote:DETROIT – When the all-new 2014 GMC Sierra full-size pickup arrives this summer, its standard 4.3L EcoTec V-6 it will offer the most torque of any standard V-6 in the segment – 305 lb-ft (413 Nm).
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I meant "maybe you're right and they have started turning a profit within the last year or 2. But anyway it was just an off the cuff remark and Buick is still > Audi. I know what swap I'm planning for my Blazer. 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Those are pretty sad HP/tq figures for such an oversized engine. Also lollin' at "sharing the same geometry as our small block V8s" as if its a bragging point that you make cheaply engineered 90 degree V6s by lopping the front cylinders off a V8 instead of doing it correctly and engineering it from the ground up as a 60 degree V6. Oh GM
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
The 4.3 has always been that way though? Who the gently caress cares, it's a good motor.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Related to old news, but don't know where else to post: does anyone know what parts supply will look like for Suzuki in the states now that they've packed their bags? I know a couple of young families looking for inexpensive practical vehicles and I'm thinking the SX4 would be a good option for both of them. One of them may have more money to spend and likes Jettas for some reason, so I'm thinking Kizashi as another possibility.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Those are pretty sad HP/tq figures for such an oversized engine. Also lollin' at "sharing the same geometry as our small block V8s" as if its a bragging point that you make cheaply engineered 90 degree V6s by lopping the front cylinders off a V8 instead of doing it correctly and engineering it from the ground up as a 60 degree V6. Oversized in what way? Pushrods are lighter in weight and smaller in size than DOHC, and as long as power and fuel economy figures are competitive with DOHC designs who cares what the displacement is?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
HP/L is the only proper form of performance comparison. Which is why a B16 Civic is a better car than an LS1 Corvette.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:Oversized in what way? Pushrods are lighter in weight and smaller in size than DOHC, and as long as power and fuel economy figures are competitive with DOHC designs who cares what the displacement is? I think its interesting to see it being compared to 0.6l-0.7l smaller engines. I mean good for them for including all those technologies, but Id be really interested to see the consumption numbers for it. It seems pretty hard to increase displacement with out losing MPG.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Sadi posted:I think its interesting to see it being compared to 0.6l-0.7l smaller engines. I mean good for them for including all those technologies, but Id be really interested to see the consumption numbers for it. It seems pretty hard to increase displacement with out losing MPG. Dunno, the current silverado already shows better mileage for the 5.3L V8 compared to the now ancient 4.3L V6 with 4-speed they offer right now, so clearly displacement isn't everything. Gearing (and attendant optimization), weight, and aero are arguably more important.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
305lb-ft / 285hp is more than enough for everyday light truck uses, but yeah, it's rather meaningless without seeing weight and fuel economy numbers. Also why in god's name would GM waste so much ad copy yakking about old-rear end engines yet swear there's little in common? Admittedly I don't think I've ever seen a GM V-6 truck pre-Vortec.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Wasn't the 4.3V6 always labeled as a Vortec, though? I thought it was labeled that way from the time they swapped out ye olde inline six. At any rate, glad they finally did away with the old lump and went with something based on the current V8s.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:I'm pretty sure Buick's average buyer's age has dropped something wild like a decade in the last few years. This isn't difficult to accomplish when your previous target market was people already on their death beds (Buick jokes are easy). In all honesty, though, Buick's current lineup is extremely impressive, and their marketing has improved considerably. I'm 33, and I'd consider one right now.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:This isn't difficult to accomplish when your previous target market was people already on their death beds (Buick jokes are easy). I'm 31 and would have loved it if the verano turbo had been out last year when I was shopping. It would have been on my list for sure.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
I was wholly unimpressed with the Verano when I drove it. Nothing about it seemed to justify the price and it was boring as hell.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Wasn't the 4.3V6 always labeled as a Vortec, though? I thought it was labeled that way from the time they swapped out ye olde inline six. Correct, the 4.3 has always been a Vortec and has always been based off a V8. As long as it's based off their latest V8 now I really don't see what the problem is, it should be a good competitor for the Ford Ecoboost.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
leica posted:This. The Peyton Manning add actually made me want to check out a Verano When we were car shopping last year we checked out Buick, particularly the Verano and you know what, it was pretty sweet. I don't get the commercials in the sense that celeb endorsement has never worked for me. About the only commercials that work for me are the food/restaurant ones. "Oh a new item is coming out for me to try!" I ended up getting my wife Mercedes though. EDIT: My father is thinking about one for his next vehicle although he's in his 60s. Gatts fucked around with this message at 17:56 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
leica posted:Correct, the 4.3 has always been a Vortec and has always been based off a V8. quote:As long as it's based off their latest V8 now I really don't see what the problem is, it should be a good competitor for the Ford Ecoboost.  I don't know what kind of chemicals you'd have to be on to think this is an Ecoboost competitor. It's pretty clearly competition for the N/A 3.7 V6, or Dodge's 3.6 Pentastar. The Ecoboost is in an entirely different power bracket altogether, making torque comparable to Fords 6.2L V8.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Wasn't the 4.3V6 always labeled as a Vortec, though? I thought it was labeled that way from the time they swapped out ye olde inline six. leica posted:Correct, the 4.3 has always been a Vortec and has always been based off a V8. As long as it's based off their latest V8 now I really don't see what the problem is, it should be a good competitor for the Ford Ecoboost. Q_res posted:Actually, if you want nitpick, the Vortec named didn't come around until they started shoving it in S-10s. Not quite! Carbed version was (I think) Vortec, as was the center port injected version (available 92 on in the S10/Blazer), but the TBI engine in my 91 is definitely non-Vortec; weird that they would develop low-spec heads for a short-run application like that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
The Vortec name was actually a reference to a new cylinder head design GM put on the 4.3 V6, and later the truck V8s. The first Vortec was a fuel-injected 4.3 brought out in 1988.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
So, the new Peugeot 308. I like it. The gaping maw and shark nose and the rest of the questionable styling is gone, as is a lot of the chub. It's a lot more conservative in looks than the old one, but that's a good thing. In the good old days, Citroën did all the crazy outrageous brilliantly engineered stuff and Peugeot did the well-driving dependable cars for people who weren't quite mad enough to buy a Citroën. I say it's a return to form, and a good one, the 508 and 208 were early indicators, but this is the big seller. If you're going to compete seriously in the Golf class, you need to look the part and not like some crazy experiment like the old car did. It's only just been announced, they'll be formally unveiling it at the Frankfurt motorshow. I'm sure it'll have a perfectly normal collection of gasoline and diesel engines, mostly four-cylinders in the 1.2-1.6L range, with and without turbos, figure maybe 160hp for the top turbo 1.6L gasoline version. Considering the 208 GTI with 200hp, a 230hp 308 GTI doesn't seem out of the question. And I bet I'm the only AIer who's even slightly excited about this car. Considering how crap Peugeot were for a period, I think I have every right to be excited. This car (or more likely the wagon version) could be a strong contender for my next car. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:So, the new Peugeot 308. I like it. The gaping maw and shark nose and the rest of the questionable styling is gone, as is a lot of the chub. It's a lot more conservative in looks than the old one, but that's a good thing. In the good old days, Citroën did all the crazy outrageous brilliantly engineered stuff and Peugeot did the well-driving dependable cars for people who weren't quite mad enough to buy a Citroën. I say it's a return to form, and a good one, the 508 and 208 were early indicators, but this is the big seller. If you're going to compete seriously in the Golf class, you need to look the part and not like some crazy experiment like the old car did. I would be excited about that if it was available in the US. As it is, I will just be excited about the GTI we'll get one year later than the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:So, the new Peugeot 308 Anything is a step up from the earlier 308. I can't understand how there are as many as there are on the roads here. I really like the design language Peugeot is going with now. It's kind of fussy on the 208, well resolved on the 308 and the 508 is just about my favourite looking car in the segment. I'm eager to try the whole tiny steering wheel setup when the 208 GTi arrives. sadnessboner fucked around with this message at 04:44 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Q_res posted:
You mean the ecoboost isn't the base engine? Why the gently caress would I want a N/A V6 from Ford when they have the Ecoboost? I must be on drugs if I thought Ford would actually do that
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
The Ecoboost actually slots in above the 5.0, it's more expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Wow, I guess putting a turbo on a V6 ain't all that cheap. Think I'd take the 5.0.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Keep in mind, the 5.0 makes 380 lb-ft of torque @ 4250 rpm and the Ecoboost makes 420 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. It's also EPA rated (I know, I know...) to get slight better gas mileage than the 5.0. I wouldn't dismiss it too quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
leica posted:You mean the ecoboost isn't the base engine? Why the gently caress would I want a N/A V6 from Ford when they have the Ecoboost? What? http://www.autoblog.com/2013/05/14/2014-cadillac-xts-gets-410-hp-twin-turbo-v6/ quote:Cadillac XTS - 2014 I guess the twin turbo engine will probably only be on the AWD version but the press release doesn't actually specify, does it? I hope that a 410hp FWD cadillac happens.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
On some weird level, a twin-turbo AWD XTS seems kind of cool to me. Then again, I shudder to think what that thing is going to cost.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Keep in mind, the 5.0 makes 380 lb-ft of torque @ 4250 rpm and the Ecoboost makes 420 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. It's also EPA rated (I know, I know...) to get slight better gas mileage than the 5.0. I wouldn't dismiss it too quickly. It's not clear to me how the EPA figures work when you can get trucks with different rear-end ratios, and it doesn't look like the ecoboost engine and the 5.0l are availible with the same range of rear ends, I saw some people grumbling on pickuptrucks.com that Ford was doing this intentionally to make the ecoboost look better than it is when in reality if you really equip them the same way the V8 probably wins out.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Q_res posted:On some weird level, a twin-turbo AWD XTS seems kind of cool to me. Then again, I shudder to think what that thing is going to cost. The NA version already starts at $44k for the FWD and reasonably equipped is easily $50k+. THey need to get this drivetrain into the Acadia Denali and a new Buick Enclave Super (which for some reason still has not been renamed back to Roadmaster).
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:So, the new Peugeot 308. I like it. The gaping maw and shark nose and the rest of the questionable styling is gone, as is a lot of the chub. It's a lot more conservative in looks than the old one, but that's a good thing. In the good old days, Citroën did all the crazy outrageous brilliantly engineered stuff and Peugeot did the well-driving dependable cars for people who weren't quite mad enough to buy a Citroën. I say it's a return to form, and a good one, the 508 and 208 were early indicators, but this is the big seller. If you're going to compete seriously in the Golf class, you need to look the part and not like some crazy experiment like the old car did. Having been the victim of a 407sw, I can honestly say that "interesting design" actually means "impractical bullshit" when it comes to Peugeot. This is boring, nothing sets it apart from anything else in the same class. I predict it will be slightly cheaper than a golf but not as good... And with abysmal residuals to top it off. Why can't more cars be like the Citroen DSx range ?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Spatule posted:Having been the victim of a 407sw, I can honestly say that "interesting design" actually means "impractical bullshit" when it comes to Peugeot. It's sad that the 407 was saddled with such hideous looks and impracticality, even more so because it was the replacement for the 406, which is so much better looking and a better car in just about every way. I am biased, of course, but the whole gaping maw design language was a huge mistake. By all accounts, the 407 drives extremely well, but you already know this. Compared to the old 308 etc., the new one is slightly boring, or at least more conservative. But I think that's a good thing. Peugeot scared off a lot of people by making weird-looking cars for a decade or so. It's about time they get back into good graces with mr. and mrs. Everyman. If the 508 and 208 are any indication, the quality of the interior etc. will be vastly improved compared to the old car, which is something that was sorely needed. And it'd drat well better drive a hell of a lot better than the soggy noodle that was the old car. Were the 504, 505, 405, 306 and 406 ever particularly interesting or attention-getting? No, but they were sensibly designed, practical, dependable, well-handling and affordable long-legged cars capable of long distance driving in comfort, for those of us who aren't filthy rich and can't afford a grand tourer. And the bad residuals means I can pick up a used one relatively cheap. I know that's not really good for Peugeot, but it's great for me, the used car buyer. Not every car can be a Citroën DSx, because not every car company is Citroën, and they shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 06:58
|
|