Theme
Buick Avant 
In this project, we studied potential markets around the world, trying to understand how luxury is changing, and the aspirations of consumers and how they use vehicles in the context of their everyday lives. What we found out is this — how people use their cars, where they drive, what they need and expect from premium products, and how these things are all changing in different parts of the world.
The world of luxury is changing. It isn’t all about bling. As luxury customers become more discerning, more conscientious, and more pressed for time, there is a way to improve their lives with a small premium car.
We worked to translate these insights into useful and desirable vehicles; concepts that are about more than just styling. Yes, aesthetics are an important; they convey the owner’s tastes and values. But we also developed a series of features that consumers would find both useful and delightful.
What is a Premium Buick experience about? Relaxation…anticipation of your needs…effortless travel.
How can this be translated in a Small vehicle that is relevant in the evolving global marketplace? Efficiency…guilt-free pleasure…aesthetic presence on a smaller scale.
Buick is an interesting brand. It has a long history and relevance in the U.S. and China. Its position in the world’s two largest automotive markets gives it a unique global presence among other premium vehicle marques. For designers around the GM world, Buick is an emotional brand. We are interested in the possibilities for Buick.
Ultimately, we wanted to create a dramatic expression of a new kind of Buick. We designed six exterior themes and four interior concepts as proposals. Each utilized some of the features we developed, and took the Buick aesthetic in a new direction.
This vehicle is intended to be a stunning object, something that fits into the consumer’s everyday life, yet elevates the everyday to a compelling experience.
Take a look at the video and browse the images of Buick Avant. We’re sharing a few of the design ideas and new features that we thought would make a Small Premium Buick.
We haven’t arrived at a final solution yet, but we hope that we’re onto something.
Have a look and tell us what you think.
268 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 9:56 pm Ephraim Gerstein said:
The doors are a fantastic idea. You really seem to understand the clearance issues we city dwellers have with tight parking. Along the same lines, though, would the “luggage porter” feature create clearance problems in tight spaces?
The “move over” feature is an interesting idea. I guess it assumes that this is mostly a personal vehicle, with capacity to take passengers.
The retractable arm rests seem a bit gimicky.
From my perspective, more is not necessarily better. Any premium car should first and foremost have an outstanding engine, be made of top quality materials, and have excellent build quality. If you don’t do those things, “luggage porter” will not make up for it. However, if you hit those marks, these thoughtful features could make your product really desirable and distinctive.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:15 am Charles LeFranc said:
Exactly, Quality is our main focus at GM right now, we are getting better and better. It takes time and money to execute the finest car. Now that GM has less brands, here, at the advanced design studio, we are pushing towards innovation, identity and quality to make the difference and help GM find itself confident reliable and attractive in the future.
This small premium project is an introduction…
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 9:51 am Jeff Hallenbeck said:
I appreciate Buick’s attempt to reach into a small premium market, but I caution the designers not to “reach” too far. Buick is certainly a luxury brand, as evidenced by the Enclave and Lacrosse designs, but it shouldn’t stray into the pathway of gimmick’s to be different. Do luxury buyers really want sliding front doors and a luggage butler to serve them their bags?
I own an Enclave and I am seriously considering adding the new Lacrosse to our garage. As a mid 30 something couple we are the “new faces” that Buick is attempting to attract. I want simply stated luxury, fine appointments, smooth lines, and a suspension and transmission that can take me where I want to go.
If Buick is looking to move into the small premium market they out to start by looking at the void created by the loss of Pontiac. A 2+2 coupe (picture 7 in the slide show) could be the missing link for Buick. Build me a luxury sports car with a next generation engine that’s powerful yet environmentally friendly. A roadster that calls for winding roads yet can handle the everyday commute. Finally offer it as both a hard top and a convertible!
But what ever you do don’t offer it to the other brands……. rebadging is what helped to get Gm into its mess to begin with. Make it instintively and distinctively Buick (timeless, classic, luxurious, and envigorating)
to this comment On November 1, 2009 at 2:07 pm jeremykhn said:
A note to you and your designers: Making a small compact Buick is an excellent idea, but I see many cons down that road.
BMW has made a 1 series compact. It sells in a coupe and convertible, and a sedan is on the way.
Mercedes is going to sell a FCEV as a B Class next year, with a gas and EV version the year after.
Audi has plans for an A1 in a coupe,hatchback, CUV, and cabrio type forms. An EV is an idea on the table.
Infiniti is prepping a small compact premium car. In a coupe, cabrio form. An EV is on the way.
This should be telling you that other luxury brands are making small cars, but using FCEV,EV, and other clean technologies. I would use a clean technologie, maybe like what is found in a Volt.
Although rebadging is got you in a mess, a small Buick Volt would be a winner.
In fact, a Volt for each brand would also do the trick.
Chevrolet Volt
GMC Volt (MAYBE USING THE TERRAIN)
Buick Volt
Cadillac Converj (WE ALL SAW THAT 60 DAY AD, YEAH WE SAW IT IN THE BACKGROUND)
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 8:03 pm François said:
Je pense que de construire un petit véhicule à vocation pratique et luxueuse est une excellente idée pour rajeunir la marque Buick et intéresser les jeunes consommateurs.Je doute cependant que cette seule idée de miser sur le côté pratique soit la solution ne pour faire changer la perception qu’ont les consommateurs.
Les perception qu’ont les gens quant au confort et à l’ergonomie des voitures américaines est déjà bonne…du moins pas si mauvaise. Les gadgets proposés ici sont intéressants mais ce ne sont que des éléments de second plan. Il faudrait, à mon avis, des innovations comme une transmission intégrale innovatrice, un meilleur rapport des masses qui engendreraient un meilleur agrément de conduite et une nette amélioration de la finition. Un coffre qui nous emmène des bagages et un toit à la Maybach (qui seront sûrement en option), ne seront certainement pas des arguments suffisants pour concurrencer des berlines sport comme le font BMW, Mercedes, Audi et d’autres si les éléments de comportements routier, de performance et d’économie (un petit côté vert serait une bonne valeur ajoutée) ne sont pas au rendez-vous.
Je suis un jeune de la clientèle visée et je ne serais pas décider à acheter une Buick (à changer me perception de la marque) à moins que le produit proposé possède autant de qualité que les allemandes et les japonaises de luxe avec un gros plus ou un amalgame de petits plus.
to this comment On September 30, 2009 at 2:22 pm lilikindsli said:
Fq794U I want to say – thank you for this!
to this comment On October 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm dreamer said:
I like the idea of a smaller sportier Buick but I don’t think this car fits with what Buick customers want. Younger Buick buyers do want sportier cars but they don’t want a compact car. I would prefer to see the Riviera design from a few years ago brought to life on the new Alpha platform that is going to underpin the 2013 Cadillac with a tubo 4 cylinder and rear wheel drive. I think going straight from a luxury to compact is too much of a stretch for potential Buick customers. Your first need to convince them that a Buick can be fun to drive. I think the 2011 Regal is a good step in that direction but I am incredibly disappointed that it will not be offered here in the wagon version. Now is the perfect time to re-introduce the America tot he station wagon. Most consumers that are in there mid twenties are completely turned of by minivans because they saw their parents drive them. They also wont drive SUVs because the thought of four dollar gasoline is fresh on their minds. Yet at the same time customers are expecting their vehicle to more versatile. The easiest and most cost efficient way to satisfy these customer’s needs is to take a well designed and well built vehicle and offer it in a wagon version. Creating a good looking station wagon is no easy task but in this case it has already been done with exceptional results. The Insignia wagon is a beautiful design that magnificently combines sportiness and utility.
to this comment On October 14, 2009 at 12:56 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I thought dropping the Century name was a huge mistake, but pirating the name of a ’60s Studebaker “personal luxury” car tops that.
Whatever you call it, a premium vehicle should be of superior quality above all other considerations.
to this comment On November 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm jeremykhn said:
I agree with DREAMER. There are studies that compact cars aren’t what people want right now. Even with the recession, people are still buying bigger vehicles. A compact Buick is an excellent idea though. I saw spy shots of a compact Buick driving around and you can see the styling cues used from the upcoming Regal, and the LaCrosse. GOOD MOVE!!
Having a compact vehicle like a Fiesta would be ok, but risky. For younger people who buy small cars, they usually want something they can afford. Which is under $25,000. So making a small Buick would mean having to price it in a small price range.
If making a small premium car is what you want, then here is my advice, DO NOT MAKE IT TOO SMALL NOR TOO LUXURY LIKE. There is a habit that people have that if they see a really nice car,even a Buick, they stay away thinking it’s over priced.
to this comment On November 17, 2009 at 2:18 am con said:
I drive a Park Ave Ultra and i love my big Buick but my wife like many women would greatly appreciate something smaller and easier to park from this top quality value oriented company. Their is a lack of powerful/refined and well priced automatics in the hatchback segment and buick is fully capable of filling this lucrative unserved niches demands. An auto diesel perhaps, with high end torque in particular as these engines appear to be offered in mostly manual modes only in this category. You can easily undercut the VW TDI or the Volvo C30’s rediculous option filled prices and would still make a respectable profit. Think AWD and good visibility before butler trunk, its more attractive to buyers who drive in four season weather. Most of all make it simple, make it beautiful, make it functional and make it Buick. Forget the naysayers here, China with four times the market with i hate to say a more savvy car consuming public will lead the way and North America might wake up and realize the best cars in the world are being created right here at home. You will always be number 1 to your loyal customers, please dont let us down and pursue the future today.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 12:25 am peckwell said:
Interesting features, especially the door and glass roof.
I applaud your efforts in defining this segment for GM. It’s well past time that GM got serious about small cars, and if GM has to “break even” on the mass produced versions, perhaps the profits can come from the luxury stable mates?
Anyway, biz case issues aside, look no further than an Audi TT, especially the first generation. It felt special, it looked special, and it WAS special. Not in that it was a sports car (which some would argue), but that it was a small, premium, highly flexible (hatchback) machine that felt and appeared totally unique in the auto world.
The details were flawlessly executed, and presented in such a novel (and simple) manner. The seat heaters, the aluminum details, the baseball mitt stitching on the convertible…all of it was special, and made the driver feel the same.
Do the same, taking elements from the new Lacrosse. the doors and roof from the concept, and just nail the presentation of materials and forms. Put it on a Voltec platform, or a small diesel, and you have a premium small car that inspires and impresses.
I appreciate your soliciting our feedback. I hope it is in some way useful.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:50 am Charles LeFranc said:
I like the way you approch this project, the way that this vehicle should make the driver feel special was a main focus in the development. Bringing the Buick Avant into the premium market competing with audi TT and mini cooper is our goal. We can t wait until the european and Japanese brand invade the US market to start thinking about a small american answer to the customer. It is time to take some risks.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 1:02 pm DM3 said:
The TT and the MINI Cooper are two very different cars. To try to have one car compete with both of them would be kind of silly imo. If you want a sporty premium car, then look at the MINI cooper and Cooper S, and also send someone across the Atlantic to look at the FIAT 500 and 500 Abarth Which seem to be the MINI’s closest competitor. The 500’s are coming to a Chrysler dealer near you very soon if all the articles can be believed, so you may as well get a look before they get here.
If it’s the TT you’re looking at, then I’d also suggest the other Audis that share the same platform to see which one, or which combination would best appeal to your customers. Remember also, Some of the Boomers are starting to retire, and they don’t go for the old Buick definition of ‘American Luxury.’ They prefer the Acura and Audi versions. Though hopefully not with the Acuras new “Steel beak” styling or Audi’s new LED encrusted front end.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 2:59 pm Charles LeFranc said:
I agree that mini cooper and Audi TT are 2 different type of vehicles. But, They share this “uniqueness”. Think about how the automotive industry is evolving, all car makers taking risks think ” hybrid body style” vehicle for their portfolio; BMW comes with X6 that brings a coupe off road type on the street- mercedes brings the CLS which is a coupe sedan, now wolkswagen is doing it with the passat CC.
French automakers are bringing ” weird stuffs on the street that mixes body style.
SUV comes from the association between off road and wagon.
I think it would be a great idea to get an audi TT with more room on the back and have unique proportion to it.
The fiat 500 is nice and very well executed, but, as the mini, it is not more that a copy of the original model redigested.
What I am saying is that GM is starting from scratch in this small premium categorie and that is the reason why this car needs to be distinctive and bring the uniqueness of a TT using its own american path.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 1:22 am AlexD said:
Looks great! I love the Move-over Mode. Awesome idea. Buick is a great brand for small premium vehicles. What about pricing? I’m thinking around $30k, depending on what materials/technologies are used. Keep up the good work
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:52 pm GARRETT said:
30k? WAAAAAYYYYYYY too much!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 10:08 pm AlexD said:
$30k is depending on the materials/technology that is used. I would expect a base price of around $25k and perhaps a more luxurious model at around $30k. If it’s a truly premium vehicle, it will have a premium price.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:56 am ed said:
“Look which way the money’s flowing, and stand in front of it with a BIG Basket!” old saying
With the allocation of billions of dollars in stimulus funds for smart grid technology, electric vehicle development and car charging infrastructure, movement toward a transportation system for the digital age — in which vehicles are connected to the power grid as well as communication networks — has picked up momentum. Here are the key players and technologies you need to know about.
http://earth2tech.com/2009/09/22/earth2tech-guide-to-car-2-0/#more-40262
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 11:17 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the link. And thanks in general for all the effort you’ve put into your comments in the LAB. You have been on top of, and alerted us to a lot of important “big picture” issues.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 1:51 pm ed said:
Wade,
One reason I still have my 1996 Saturn is
. . . I haven’t seen any vehicles of “Value” in years.
The American auto industry used to be able to make a profit
. . . by selling good, basic, solid, honest vehicles.
Then it seemed that you had to make bigger and bigger,
. . . more and more options and were losing money on each vehicle you sold.
GM’s . . . been given a 2nd chance to get things right and
. . . your looking to make smaller vehicles with “gimmicky” features,
. . . running them up the flag pole to see who salutes them.
It’s scaring the hell out of me, that your going to fail, to make a profit again and
. . . all our tax dollars are going out the window.
A lot of the other tax dollars, are going to other countries for oil
. . . that I would rather see come from renewable energy.
All I want, is to buy a vehicle that gives me my moneys worth and
. . . that you make a profit on, without all the tricks.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:52 pm ed said:
Follow the Money!
Tatas get £10-m UK loan for electric Indica
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/09/19/stories/2009091951930100.htm
Better Place’s, Shai Agassi buys 100,000 EV’s
French Gov RFP’s 50,000 EVs for:
. . . . . . postal services,
. . . . . . electric utility EDF (electricité de France),
. . . . . . national railway service SNCF.
within the next five years, says Le Monde, the French government
. . . actually plans to order a total of 100,000 EVs.
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=21799
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:24 am Slavko Miladinovic said:
If I comment on this small premium Buick would I have to move into the RenCen and run next to Susan and her team on the treadmill, as she implied when she answered my web chat question?
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:31 am Jason said:
Been following the lab a while, but this post compelled me to contribute.
How do you get younger drivers into Buick?
I have been converted to aspire to Cadillac over the last decade of the brands ‘rebirth’, but I would rather aspire to Buick. However, they are all ‘boats’ and ‘only for old people’. At least, that was my thinking until recently…
This car changes everything.
Specifically:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gmblogs/3923004075/in/set-72157622379029006/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gmblogs/3923003737/in/photostream/
Give me SIDI. Give me fine materials. Keep the weight and size within reason and the handling taut.
Keep the door mechanism (useful innovations like that are good marketing), but forget the moving seat.
But most important, keep those ‘muscles’!!! (’hips’ are fine for the bigger models, i’m talking about the lines in the front sweeping up from the grille area.) And punctuated by that ‘fist’ of a grille, the old waterfall bulging through like knuckles wrapped in a leather glove. (Please, please, please ‘reinvent’ the waterfall for smaller models, that will be critical to shedding some stereotypes. Do it now, anywhere you can before some of the pipeline stuff is finalized.)
Make Buick ‘tough’, not just ‘little purple pill’ type rejuvenation, authentic youth and vitality.
Forget chasing Lexus in this particular segment, the previous poster that mentioned Audi TT was on the money.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 3:23 pm Wade Bryant said:
Could you elaborate on – “I’d rather aspire to Buick..” ?
What is it about Buick that you feel would be better for you than Cadillac?
Thanks for the comments and for supporting this concept.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 11:04 pm TerryB. said:
Buick built their share of boats, but they also always had the tradition of ‘Banker’s hot rods’. Quality, style, performance, in a slightly downsized car. The Caddys were for real estate salesmen, funeral homes, and blue hairs blocking the fast lane while they peer through the steering wheel. And I say that, even though I owned a few DeVilles when my work had me driving many miles of southwestern highways. Which is the cooler car, the CTS-V or the Grand National?.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:01 am Jack H. said:
I think of Cadillac as the luxury car. Buick is (at least I think it should be) the sleeper.
The stately, good-looking car you pull up beside and don’t suspect until it blows the doors off your car.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 3:12 am PhilR said:
Buick has an history of performance, styling innovations and luxury without looking too extravagant like Cadillac. Cadillac throughout most of it’s history, (or mostly since the fifties) was flashy, bling bling but not performance-oriented. GM recently tried to make a new image for Cadillac but I can’t get out of my mind all the years of bad taste styling and bling bling features for those who like to flash too much.
Here in Quebec, I often heard people referring to Cadillacs as “des chars de parvenus” I don’t know how to translate that exactly but it means something like “cars for new riches with bad taste and no knowledge”…
No matter what GM does with Cadillac, I’ll never be able to like this brand.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 9:23 am Jason said:
What i mean by ‘i’d rather aspire to Buick’:
If i bought a Caddy, there would be few apologies, few regrets.
(I absolutely love the new SRX, it is cutting edge and beautiful in every way.)
But I don’t want to pay for all the technology/bling.
I don’t really want to hear ‘how can you afford THAT?’.
I don’t really need anything that big/powerful.
And as much as i love the sharp lines, i still prefer sharp curves.
If i bought a Buick, there would be all kinds of social static to deal with. I want a Buick that nullifies all that static at the very first glance. To me, Buick has a rich heritage of power and style. It’s a ‘made it’ car without the pretense, but with a whole different set of ‘baggage’.
I’d rather that ‘baggage’ was removed. I’d rather want a Buick.
The Lacrosse is a step in the right direction, as far as sharpening up the curves, but it is still way too huge. But seeing it gave me real hope for a successful Cruze size premium.
That why i’m here.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:07 pm Wade Bryant said:
EXCELLENT information. That is exactly the kind of response that I can use! As we build the Buick brand we need to know what brand aspects to play up and what to avoid. I think our recent products and many of the Buick Avant sketches are striking a chord, but we need to understand what the car ’says’ about the customer (from the customers’ perspective and from others’).
a ‘made it’ car without the pretense – eliminate the negative baggage – PERFECT!
I’m curious about the “social static” that you’d get as a Buick owner, and what it would take to nullify it.
Thanks for everyone’s responses to this comment.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:25 pm Jane said:
I love the Buick’s new styling much more than the sharp lines of the Cadillac. And small touches like the ambient lighting also make me lean toward’s Buick, but it just doesn’t feel sporty enough. I want a Buick class Volvo C30; some of these designs are perfect. I like luxury, but I want to see new features that help me interact with my car, home, family, or office and not more things dealing with comfort.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 10:18 am Jason said:
Social static:
-My twentysomething brother-in-law bought a Buick Century, his nickname instantly became ‘gramps’. Luckily, just the car goes by ‘gramps’ now…
-My mom bought a Buick Century, everyone at her work asked if she was planning on retiring soon or something.
How to nullify?
-Styling
-needs to say:
“i’m not just ‘playing it safe’ with the status quo”
“i’m an individual, a trend-setter”
“yeah, you can option your car to have this or that gadget too, but it doesn’t LOOK like THIS!”
-use something other than chrome, maybe anodized aluminum?
-update the grille/logo concept (China should be involved in any exploration of this)
-offer bolder colors that are not shared with any other vehicles from a shared platform
-the scissor doors couldn’t hurt
-Performance
-needs to say:
“you just got your ‘doors blown off’ by a Buick, bet you didn’t see that one coming”
-Interior
-seats that look and feel supportive, people looking in shouldn’t see a pile of mushy pillows (especially the easily visible headrests), they might still be super comfy, but we’re talking about changing perceptions and conveying a different identity.
Buick can be more than just one thing, it can be bigger than it is now, and must be to succeed. It can appeal to the younger buyer without doing it in a ‘value’ proposition. It can still appeal to its aging core while doing this.
I’m not in the ‘luxury’ market. I’m in the small car market, and always will be. As I get older, I will spend more ‘luxury’ money, but I don’t plan on going to bigger cars, maybe even smaller! And I am not alone, this is a massive shift/trend between the generations that needs to be understood, and this project is right on.
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 8:44 pm Josh Krupa said:
I have always felt a stronger tie to Buick than Cadillac as well, even if its products haven’t been that inspiring in over a decade until the Enclave and new LaCrosse. I feel that Buick has a certain finesse and craftsmanship to it without feeling at all over-the-top or ostentatious. In its history Cadillac has had so many periods of flashiness with giant tailfins, extensive chromework, upholstered hardtops, etc. that just tried too hard to be over the top. The new Cadillac products are very strong but I still like the obtainable elegance and simplicity that I associate with Buick, or at least with what I see of where Buick is heading.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 6:03 pm Inline6 said:
I agree with the original poster, as well.
I’m a single 26 year-old male. In my lifetime, Buick has gone from an admired, aspirational brand to a badge on the front of floaty Chevys with pillow-top bench seat interiors.
But from a very young age, I admired the Buick brand above all of GM’s other brands because I knew their past. I’d seen the ‘53 Skylark, the Delta-Wing ’59s, the ‘63-73 Rivieras, the ’60s Wildcats, Skylarks, and GS’s. Even into the mid-’70s, Buick retained its beautiful, confident swagger.
So I was relieved that GM decided to keep Buick, when Saturn, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile were jettisoned. Not just because I happened to like Buick more, not just because they had a great past, but because there was a solid business case and LOTS of promise and potential direction to take it to a great future.
I see Cadillac and Buick are both unabashedly American brands. But where Cadillac has always been flamboyant, edgy, and avant garde; Buick has been powerful, elegant, and graceful. Cadillac pushes the envelope stylistically and technologically. Buick makes the envelopes beautifully.
Buick has also done small cars (for their day) before. The ‘61 Special/Skylark was a step out, and it totally reversed the brand’s sales, which had been moribund for the 5 years prior. The ‘73 Apollo (a great name that would benefit from a second shot) turned into the ‘75 Skylark compact, which was second only to the Nova in sales among the 4 divisions that used that body. By 1984, the Skylark would be GM’s best-selling (outselling the Citation II) X car…a year that the even smaller Skyhawk sold a peak 150k units. And these later models sold during GM’s most ball-fumbling, listless period ever.
Imagine what Buick could do with a small car today. Your company is working harder than it has in years on better marketing, on proper product differentiation, on vehicle quality, design, efficiency, and dynamics. And you’re starting to deliver. With CAFE and CO2 regs looming large and with an emergent premium small car segment in the US, Buick needs to be there.
And with the right marketing, with the right level of public confidence, buyers will, over time, accept a smaller Buick. Especially if it’s “no excuses” good.
I bought my ‘08 Saturn Astra about a year ago because it was attractive, fun-to-drive, comfortable, and practical. And I hear that Buick is working on a new Astra-based compact as I type this. Done right, it’ll be a Buick that I’ll proudly own, and that I’m sure my friends will admire. Just offer three pedals and a sunroof together.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 11:32 am SteveW said:
The pivot/slide forward door is very appealing. If executed properly, would there be a need for the swing out mode? The luggage portage coupled with either in-house designed vehicle specific luggage or modular/collapsible storage system would be interesting, think Ferrari or Bentley. In the animation the rear fascia panel drops down. I think this is a good solution. It reduces the height items need to lifted into the back and it reduces the amount of space(overhead or side to side) that is required to open the rear door.
The angular face on 2+2 coupe, specifically the grill and how it interacts with the top creases in the fenders and hood detail is wonderful. The interior design is going in the right direction. However, the concept will either be perfected or killed by the material and surface finish choices. Please stay true to the purpose of small premium. The concept of an adjustable transparent/opaque is very premium. I am just not sure about the presented method. The modular interior can be pushed past it’s current point. The concept is strong.
GM has been a design leader in the past. It can take this position again. Keep pushing.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 3:10 pm Charles LeFranc said:
thank you for your enthousiasm!
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 3:28 pm Wade Bryant said:
To answer your first question – yes, the door does need to keep its conventional, swing-out mode. This dual-mode door doesn’t have an ugly external track like a van door, so its forward movement is somewhat limited.
The forward-motion mode makes it far easier for ingress/egress in tight parking spaces, but it’s not as convenient as a conventional door in “normal” situations.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:04 pm GARRETT said:
Why does the door need to keep the traditional swing? Having two different ways to open the door just seems like another thing thats going to brake to me. Why not just give it “Lambo” doors?
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm Wade Bryant said:
funny you should mention it – watch for scissor-”Lambo doors” on our next posted Small Premium concept
I don’t even remember if we considered the “door image” when we selected the dual mode for Buick Avant.
I wonder if scissor doors would send the right message on a Buick (too showy maybe???)
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 3:33 pm GARRETT said:
I understand your concern with scissor doors possibly being too showy. However, I dont think its a big problem when buyers see the benefits. I think the mid-gate on the Avalanche could be considered showy or gimmicky, but its functional and the main reason why people buy the truck.
This might be a lame way to sell you scissor doors, but along with being convenient in tight spaces I think they are different and cool. Im in my mid twenties, and if you are trying to bring youth to your brand trying a unique approach to something as uninteresting a opening doors is a way to make your cars different from every other brand out there. Also, I guarantee having scissor doors would make people rethink Buick as an old person brand.
To touch again on the showy question, yes Im in my mid-twenties but I hate when people add stupid accessories to there cars just to attract attention like 24″ rims and screens in the back headrest. Unlike those things these doors serve a purpose, and you cant tell there is anything different about them until they are in use. They are different enough to attract buyers, yet subtle enough to still look classy.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm Josh Krupa said:
As someone who has to fight for spots in a crowded parking lot on a daily basis, the two mode door seems brilliant to me. If executed properly without adding too much weight to the design, I think this is a very elegant solution. I like the concept of “scissor” doors on a sports car, but I think they would appear out of place on a Buick. I also wouldn’t want to hear the comparisons from a friend of mine who drives an 86 DeLorean.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm DDB said:
I think a small vehicle with these kinds of design could really put some legitimacy into the segment for many buyers. No on really builds an attractive small car right now. I think that if the quality and design are there, the extra features such as the roof, doors, etc. could really make Buick stand out in the segment. Any of those designs, especially that coupe, could make me seriously consider another GM vehicle.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 2:52 pm HotCarNut said:
I own and drive a MINI Cooper S and I really like this exercise for Buick. The front end styling from picture 1 in the slide show with the rear end styling from picture 6 really seem to capture the essence of the new Buick. It’s purposeful yet taut and clean. It exudes a sense of style that few other vehicles really capture. Cadillac’s “edginess” has always represented technology to me, but this design language from Buick really reminds me of luxury and style, much like the cars of the 30’s and 40’s. Very interesting direction for Buick (and very positive in my opinion).
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 6:05 pm Jay S said:
The Mini is not the model to follow. The Mini is quirky, retro, counterculture. Your model is a Rolex watch or a Fabrege Egg… small items that reek of elegance … think rolling jewelry. Fit, finish, refinement of design will make or break this concept.
As to the innovations, Laterally sliding seats and roll-open doors might appeal to some, but to others, they may
seem gimmicky. They may have more application on mass market cars. Your technology should focus on the drivetrain and ride experience.
Some of these designs are flat out beautiful, IMO. Especially the one rendered in 3/4 front view, as seen from above. Buy that designer lunch!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 11:54 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the well thought-out comments. Yes, Buick doesn’t want to take the Mini design approach. I think there is market space for a different type of Small Premium. Your ideas on what we should/shouldn’t concentrate on are valuable.
The designer you’d like us to treat to lunch in in our UK studio. I e-mailed him to make sure he sees all the great comments his design is getting.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 6:05 pm kevin smith said:
Nicely done. Like this as well, if not better, than Lincoln’s smaller premium concept. Your “slide” feature and arm rests look very appealing. Seems they would add a lot of cost though. Well done.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 6:27 pm castigamatti said:
Platform ? Fiat -GM SCSS ( GAMMA ) ?
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:10 pm Wade Bryant said:
not determined – we did some research on the approprite vehicle size and the jury is still out.
What size shoud this be? Don’t worry about our available architectures, let us know what is needed (name a current product (Gm or competitive) for reference)
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 7:09 pm IsaacS said:
Have you considered/looked at BMW 1 series/Audi A2 or 3 coupe (none available in North America) as a models to emulate?
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 9:05 pm Josh Krupa said:
Dimensions could really make or break this as a concept. I would like to see it somewhere between the European B and C-segments, slotted between the Alfa Romeo MiTo (aprox. 160″ in length) and the Audi A3 (aprox. 169″) in size. That would give it the compactness the design would require but would still provide enough interior space to give a wow factor and appeal to a premium market audience. Much smaller and you vastly limit the American customer base; any larger and you would lose the smartness of the overall design.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 6:41 pm JIM CRAWLEY said:
BUILD IT
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 7:35 pm Houston Tx Used Cars – Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) – Cash For Clunkers Houston | Houston Tx Used Cars said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:17 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | Stoth said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:29 pm racepay.com » Post Topic » Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, Ryan! [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:30 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | UpOff.com said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:30 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) at Hellfire Empire – Moto said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, Ryan! [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm Craig said:
Great post, and it means a lot that you’re soliciting feedback through online community.
I’m a huge fan of what Buick has been able to accomplish in slowly changing brand perception. The new LaCrosse looks very nice and my wife continues to ask for an Enclave.
With that said, I do believe a coupe could help accelerate the brand perception issues that plague Buick. The Avant name is great along with the renderings. The key though is to really promote innovation. Keep the roofline low and stay true to the designs. Make the most out of the technologies that exist today – utilize rearview cameras, IR blind spot assist, etc. A small car packed with innovation will turn heads and drive the inherently curious into dealerships.
Features have become a commodity. It’s why Ford’s efforts with the new Fiesta will max out a loaded B-segment vehicle with leather.
Don’t follow the trend, lead the pack. Go to a place Lexus could never go. There’s a niche available for the taking and I think this vehicle could fill it.
Job well done,
Craig
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:20 pm Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the support with regards to the LAB and Buick Avant.
What are some of the ways we could beat Lexus? I’d like your insight.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:33 pm Jane said:
Don’t focus too much on beating Lexus. Lexus buyers are old too. I’m 23 and I wouldn’t buy a Lexus, but I would buy some of these designs.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm PhilR said:
I’m among those who like some Lexus models. Toyota has always been my second favourite brand after Buick. Until the mid nineties, Toyota had a few nice RWD cars that were replaced by Lexus models for the north american market. I don’t like the current Toyota lineup, it seems that all nice models are now badged as Lexus.
I like the old IS 300 and I also like the current IS 250-350 but I’m not impressed by it’s styling. The GS is also nice but again, there’s space to improve it’s styling! I was more impressed by the older generation Lexus GS/Toyota Aristo models when they were new than by the new GS models which have too conservative styling.
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 11:47 pm Josh Krupa said:
The only thing required to beat marques like Lexus is to produce vehicles like this one that stand out in both unique design and uncompromising quality. There is not a lot currently in the American market in the B-segment (or the C-segment for that matter) that doesn’t feel like a bland econobox. This vehicle, or one similar to it, would really stand out in the market, in a good way. And Lexus has no direct competitor to it. Even if they give the LF-Ch concept the green light, it is not likely to retain the style that the Avant concept has, and the LF-Ch is more of a direct competitor to the Audi A3/TT and VW GTI, and from what I can see the Buick concept is a more unique offering.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm Evan H. said:
I like the first picture in the show, the silver hatchback, best. It’s the best proportioned, is very young-looking, short overhangs, and could be transitioned most easily into a production car with minimal design changes. It’s also good-looking enough, with enough visual personality, to draw sales away from MINI and easily eclipse the weird Volvo C30 and boring Audi A3. Bring the silver hatchback over as the new Buick Avant, make it real fun to drive and agile, and offer a stickshift, and I will buy it the second it comes out.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:36 pm MikeDWhite said:
I kinda like the moveable seats and trick door, but I hope they can do their things mechanically without the assistance of electric motors. Those add weight and long-term durability issues. The glass roof just seems like overkill, I just don’t get why people are pushing for that kind of thing. And what does it do for roof crush safety?
As for styling, the second and last images are the only ones that work for me. I think the car needs to have a strong stance and “presence” so you don’t immediately notice the size. Using styling features like fender bulges, which are usually only seen on larger cars, helps. I also think you should try a four-door version.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:38 pm TheAutoBid.com » Blog Archive » Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, Ryan! [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:39 pm Car Lover’s Blog » Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:40 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) at Auto Car said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, Ryan! [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:43 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | Cars Blog said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, Ryan! [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:59 pm Donpella said:
I don’t usually write comments, but if this is done right… Buick may be on to something. I would suggest dusting off that amazing kappa platform if it’s looking to compete with high end small cars like the Cooper Mini or BMW 1 series. That 2+2 coupe profile is beautiful, I say Alpha or even Zeta all the way…it can be a sister coupe to the Camaro with different styling. It can fill that void that the Trans Am occupied and because it’s a Buick it can ask for a higher price. Name it Grand National, T-type, Wildcat or whatever, if it is done correctly with a underlining focus on performance these ideas can be the fountain of youth for Buick
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 11:30 am Phil Racicot said:
Buick needs cars for young people of all ages! And Buick needs RWD cars, Zeta-based or not!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2674296613_99e118c71b_o.jpg
I got my 1968 Buick Wildcat back in 1992 when I was in high school. It was the coolest car in the school’s parking lot and it was the quickest one too! It was a sleeper 4 door hardtop with a 3.42 posi axle.
I was a teenager then but the only cars I was looking for when I got my first Wildcat were 1965-76 Buicks. My father wanted to give me his 6 years old Jetta GL if I decided to be reasonable and not buy this Buick. I refused! He eventually liked that car much better than he expected! He even borrowed it to me on occasions just to go to the grocery store or to work (he was a junior school principal) and he was amazed to get positive comments from students on my car!
The same car, 8 years after I got it…
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2296/2824021218_4d6e75955f.jpg
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm GARRETT said:
I completely agree with the Kappa idea. Why not get your moneys worth out of that platform. Everything I heard about that platform was great, but the only reason why the cars didnt go over well was because of the interiors. A small 2+2 hatch on that platform would be awesome; so would the Camero based Buick.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 27, 2009 at 12:16 am Josh Krupa said:
I completely agree that the Kappa architecture is underused, but as a realist, I personally feel that this offering would make more economic sense off a FWD-based platform, especially if given AWD availability.
I do however think that a Buick compact 2+2 convertible with a folding hardtop or a coupe-cabriolet on the Kappa would be genius. (baby Velite roadster concept/modern day Riviera) It would be the perfect thing to officially ditch the former “bluehair car of choice” stereotype.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:14 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | thecarhelper.com said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:32 pm Christian said:
i have to admit, my pereption of buick has been “automotive for those over 50 years” but this dosen’t look half bad, very nice actually, if produced (i hope) probably either give it an turbocharged inline-4 or v6, this would be a very good car. Nice job
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:46 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | Yuvablog said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:48 pm GARRETT said:
The Mini and the TT are great cars, but I think their biggest appeal is that they dont look like anything else on the road. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO ATTRACT YOUTH TO BUICK, INDIVIDUALITY IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST. We dont want to drive cars that look like our Mom’s minivan (not saying these do, just making a point).
Some great ideas in these cars but Im guessing at least 90% of the things we saw wont make it into production as usual.
Sorry, but I dont see the need to have a door swing “both” ways. LOL (sorry had to do it). However, I do applaud the fact that you are trying to change things up with doors. Im sick of the fact that Lambo and Rolls are having all the fun. Give us suicide and scissor doors now. I command you.
Thanks
GARRETT
ps
Photo 4 is my favorite. Doesnt look that small though with that hood. However, Im not saying shrink the hood. Id love to see that body on a Camero platform. I dont think its the small premium you’re looking for, but it would be one hell of a sexy niche car.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:51 pm GARRETT said:
Im also a big fan of the last photo, and I love the fact that you hid the door handles.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 9:54 pm Supercar» Blog Archive » Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, Ryan! [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:00 pm Buick Avant « The Lab | The Car Tech blog said:
[...] original here: Buick Avant « The Lab Tags: buick, design, design-language, its-resale, lacked-manufacturer, marketing-support, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:01 pm bdubsee said:
I love small cars and was, in fact, close to buying a Saturn Astra until it was orphaned even though it left a lot to be desired in the way of features. I’m 36 but my first car was a Buick and they hold a special place in my mind. Absolutely love small premium though I think the TT is a more apt comparison as the Mini, while cute, is an awful lot of marketing with some some poorly executed attributes such as the anti-ergonomic interior. I’d say that the Audi A3 would be closer to my vision of small premium.
The most important thing is that the car MUST be beautiful. The essence of Buick is about gorgeous, flowing lines that are emotional and upscale. The sweep spear on the new LaCrosse is stunningly executed in person though the car has about 10% too much Lexus GS in the rear 1/4 view and the interior is stunning if maybe a little too techno looking.
The concepts in the video and slide shows are interesting. I particularly like the first and last vehicles in the slide show. The first one is has nice details to the sheet metal – the tailored looks of the body lines and obviously designed surface transitions have a confidence and quality about them. The only problem is that this car being cool and being a Buick is causing me some cognitive dissonance. I can get used to it in the same way that I have a Buick SUV but it’ll be a helluva a marketing challenge to connect this car back to the Enclave and LaCrosse. The last car, however, makes perfect sense as a Buick. I like the fender bulges as an interpretation of the sweep spear.
Thank you for asking us about this topic and don’t forget BEAUTIFUL – you’ll be unique in the soulless sea of Japanese and South Korean appliances and also make my heart flutter (and checkbook open).
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:24 pm Kevin said:
I like the second to last image (by Seung i believe).
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:30 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | cars burner said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:40 pm Rob said:
I think that this is a very nice and fairly thorough concept. I very much like the wheel pods/pontoon shapes and can see that sort of shape repeated outside and in. It’s very reminiscent of ’30s Auburn or Delahaye but modern and not over the top. I especially favor the boomerang C-Pillar and the negative space that it leaves for the set-in tail lights. There are good creases along the tall body panels that help break it down it to shorter shapes and seem to set good light on them for contrast. The body’s side tallness is somewhat of a tricky spot for me, though, despite it’s good shapes. I think one of the most underrated joys of driving is the ability to put your arm out the window and with such tall sides I can see that it would be very difficult here. This also has practical implications as well, such as the ability to reach the vacuum tube at a bank teller window, throw change into a toll way booth, or pay for your order at a drive through; not to mention the improvement in visibility. I should mention, that I do think the door opening idea is great and would really love to see that make it to a production vehicle. Keep the concepts coming.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:47 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | Cars Blog said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:47 pm Andrew said:
Looking first at the drawings, a few things stand out. The shoulder line is too tall, for a small car I think an important aspect is a large view of the outside, so a larger window opening would be more important. Also, the wheels are very large and the tires very thin, too much so on both aspects. That, along with the general shilouette, almost remind me of a Veyron, which is too…fast…for a Buick. On a Cadillac, which is moving more towards the BMW side of luxury (sporting), that’s fine, as is the coupe concept. On a Bucik, however, which is more on the Lexus end (comfort), they seem out of place. In fact, a coupe body style itself seems too sporting, encroaching on Cadillac’s territory. A 3-door hatch, like a B-class, would seem more sensible as it provides better access and leaves the sporting coupe to the Cadillac ATS, and, eventually, a smaller 1-series competitor (I know that’s far off, Cadillac needs the ATS, XTS, and next gen CTS, (and if you love us XLR…and if you really love us Cien)) before it moves on to that. I like the idea of the porthole evolution, though these are too Alfa 8C, but I think in a Buick it should be more muted. The inside I like, though I’m not sure how necessary the move over is, and if it’s worth the cost.
What I think a small Buick needs is a solid driver’s feel, like a Fiesta, to be premium. The cabin needs to be covered in high quality materials, aim for Audi on this one, and it has to be loaded with technology, here rivaling Lincoln. Again, to make sure Cadillac and Buick stay apart, this, and all, Buicks should focus on absolute comfort, safety, and convience. This means FWD and AWD, not RWD. Suspension that smooths the bumps first, after that’s been accomplished you can make it as sporty as possible without sacrificing the ride. I feel MRC might be too much for a small, entry level car. This is a small car, so factors of efficency and practicality are important. Low weight, combined with four (and even three, the Germans are looking into this) cylinder engines, are important, but to make it premium it must still have enough power to pull well and solid enough for high speed cruising. Basically, if it shakes or wabbles at 80 mph, or if the engine is stressed getting there, it’s not premium enough. In terms of practicality, fold flat seats are needed and a large rear opening to access the space. Finally, the driver needs to be able to feel connected to the road, but they need to be relaxed. Radar-guided cruise control, a feature to Volvo’s City Safe, lane departure alerts and blind spot detection on the actual driving front, while on the side of comfort, top quality seats, electronicly controlled-everything, and gadgets.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:10 pm PhilR said:
About this part of Andrew’s comment:
” Again, to make sure Cadillac and Buick stay apart, this, and all, Buicks should focus on absolute comfort, safety, and convience. This means FWD and AWD, not RWD.”
Another Cadillac fan here?!
I like Buick more than any other brand but I don’t care much for comfort! I like Buick’s styling and performance. The 3 Buicks that I own have the firm ride suspension package and they ride much better than comparable Cadillacs and the newer Buicks I have driven! I don’t want a Buick with glasspacks like a friend of mine has but I don’t want a car with “quiet tuning” either!
And can you explain me what you mean by “Buicks should focus on absolute comfort, safety, and convience. This means FWD and AWD, not RWD.”?
The safest vehicles I have driven were RWD. And I live north of northeast where winters are the worst so don’t tell me FWD is better in winter, it’s completely false! I curerently have 3 RWD cars (which I used to drive all year round), 3 4×4 vehicles that are RWD 99% of the time and 0 FWD vehicles and I’ll never buy another FWD. I won’t even buy an AWD vehicle if it’s got a transverse engine or if it’s mainly driven by it’s front wheels.
Safe RWD Buicks in winter of 2004…
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/3948160680_414f59cb13_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2510/3948160636_831df85534_o.jpg
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:48 pm Car News » Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, Ryan! [...]
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:54 pm Carchitect said:
Thesea are great concepts and you absolutely should be in this segment. Buick needs cutting edge cars in all segments in order to turn it’s image. I hope you will put an idea post on other segments. Thankfully you seem to be getting more inspiration from Audi than the mamsy pamsy Lexus! It would be a mistake to compete with Lexus as the current new Buick ( I forget the name) seems to do. You know the car that just came out …
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 10:54 pm mnmavrik said:
i really like the robert melville design from ‘06. that rear end is very bold and brings me back ideas of classic vehicle shapes but with a very aerodynamic, elegant modern appeal. the front 3/4 view reminds me of a speed racer car, but not in a cheesy way. it has dramatic lines and i think it evokes the emotion that buick is heading in.
as for the video, the design of the glass roof is also very progressive. in one of my past posts i stated about auto-darkening glass, but this way of folding shades could really do the same thing for less – great idea. as for the luggage idea, i feel it is a bit too much right now and kind of gimmicky. i believe it would add too much weight to the vehicle to perform such a task and in spite of the vehicle being small, weight is still a serious issue for efficiency and performance. now for the door. as an engineer, i’m not exactly sure how the dual opening style would function realistically. it’s a very good idea, but i would have to take a while to figure out how to do it right and in what circumstances you would want it to open which way.
one feature that should be standard is the keyless entry and starting. i love my mom’s altima coupe in that you can walk up to the car without having to pull your keys out of wherever they are on you and just pull the door and it will open because it knows the key is on you. also, once inside you just put your foot on the break and push the start button. this is definitely a premium feature.
one last thought on it so far. what about the wrap-around glass look of the saab concept. even if there is a solid pillar on the inside for structural rigidity, the look of more glass i think helps open the car up so much more.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 11:34 pm GARRETT said:
How small exactly are yall thinking? As small as the upcoming Buick Astra or are yall thinking Mini small?
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 11:50 pm MGAman said:
If this is the GM of the future you are in serious trouble. What is the value to the general masses in China OR the US of this type of vehicle. That’s where the market is. LOTS more low cost cars are needed not MORE luxury cars. I can afford this price range but I choose to drive a smart For Two, because it is really all I need. For trips we drive a Prius. As your slumping Caddy sales show a change in direction is needed and it seems GM still hasn’t gotten the message. Back to basics guys, there is no money here in the US for this type of vehicle.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm Wade Bryant said:
This isn’t the only car we’re proposing for our future, though I do think it could be very appropriate in the US and China. I lived in China for a short time last year and there is no shortage of customers for premium vehicles.
Back to basics you say? We’re working on that too. Please join the conversation around Bare Necessity Car or Bare Necessity Truck. You might be more in tune with these concepts.
When we look at our future we need to address many markets. Do you really think Small Premium is inappropriate?
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:39 am Chemistrusaz said:
Looks pretty good some really great ideas. I love the roof and seating idea and the packaging of the interior. I normally drive by myself to work but when I get home the family and I go out together so having the sporting styling and driving but than have the car become a family mobile is a great idea. We liked the Enclave the only issue was the stigma of old people. Is it possible to freshen up the logo and try for a more modern grill. Everything else is right on. The La Cross great looking car had to take a double take when I saw one. BTW looks better in person than even the pictures. Find a new way to do the 3 port holes modern them up take a risk. I am considering taking another look at the Enclave.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:56 am Jack H. said:
I appreciate that you’ve done extensive research and whatnot, but I feel my position as a twenty-year-old, Canadian Buick (’95 LeSabre!) owner gives me the authority to say you’re doing it all wrong. (:D)
Buick is an old man company because it only builds cars for old, boring people (LeSabre, Park Avenue, Allure, LaCrosse). So when you interview the people who would buy Buicks (boring, old people) on how to build better Buicks, you get tips on how to build trendier cars for boring, old people.
Sorry, that’s how I see it: this concept’s a Camry with nicer lines (Kudos on the lines though, defintely a step forward).
The only way to make Buick appeal to non-boring, young people is to give the brand non-boring, desirable cars–yet maintain the Buick brand’s tradition of classy performance and comfort.
Come on, do I have to spell it out?
Lutz seemed to get it ’till he got the ol’ muzzle treatment…
Aw heck: “R-E-G-A-L”, or to be more specific: “G-R-A-N-D N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L”
What? Too expensive to develop the car? It’s already nearly done. It’s just called G8 right now.
It’s a proven model, with production infrastructure already in place. Give it the Buick quiet tuning, a more subdued grill and drop the V8 for a punchy hybrid system (you’ve been working on some of those, right?) and you’re done.
If that isn’t efficient then I’m a true hoser.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:19 pm PhilR said:
Don’t even give it quiet tuning! Just rebadge and add a glove box light maybe! Even keep the nice side vents which look like they were inspired by those of the ‘65 Buick Wildcat!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:09 am PhilR said:
I’m not sure I like what I see in the first picture, the “C” pillar looks like the one in the 1968-68 Skylark coupe (in my opinion, one of the worst Buick designs of the sixties). But at least, it seems to be a true pilarless hardtop. If this premium feature hits production in a Buick, I’ll be impressed by new GM!
About the name of the concept, I’m not happy about it, I mean not at all… It’s another french name that I don’t like and I hate even more what it means! As my first language is French, this reminds me some Wrong Wheel Drive cars from a French brand that I hate: the Citroën Traction Avant… If you want inspiration from old small french cars, at least choose cars like the RWD Peugeot 504 Ti, my all time favourite european car!
The 504 coupe
http://www.trulinesteering.com.au/Images/Gallery/Peugeot%20504%20Coupe.jpg
The 504 sedan
http://www.clubpeugeotuk.org/images/504TiSal02.jpg
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:11 am PhilR said:
In my previous post, I meant 1968-69 Skylark coupe! not 1968-68! I’d appreciate if you could edit it!
Thanks
Phil
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm Wade Bryant said:
all typos are cast in stone forever… I’ve made many more than you; all there for my Mom to see.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:09 am CaddyRich said:
I like the shape and basic design of the car (great job on the grille!), but I don’t know if the “move over mode” or sliding door idea are good concepts. The height adjustable armrests I think are a great idea – the luggage portage…not so much. A common question I read is “What makes a Buick a Buick?”…and I go back to a simple premise – there is perceived quality, and then there is actual quality. Instead of options that some may see as gimmicky, how about making interiors, switchgear, etc. that are world class a few years down the road – not just good looking on the showroom floor. Personally I feel that has always been a difference between GM and Buick’s new competitors (Lexus, Audi, Acura, etc…) and is one of the reasons for their owner loyalty. Keep up the good work!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:08 pm Wade Bryant said:
QUALITY – well aware and points well taken.
thanks.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:31 am SRT4TW said:
I love the overall shape of the first flickr car (”lefrancc11.07?), looks influenced by the original BMW Z3 Coupe, but without the overly-long hood that makes it difficult to drive in a city.
I like the sliding door, but could you make it slide directly up (not “lamborghini” or M-B Gullwing motion, just a straight slide up), it seems to me this would be an easier arm motion (cheaper than making it an electric automated sliding door).
Buick used to be about innovative design (a long, long, long time ago)… there’s still that niche available and uncontested, but not for long if Fiat brings the more recent Alfa-Romeo cars over. You can’t however make Buick all things to all people… Is it going to be for young people now? If so, young people don’t want to drive the same cars as old people (hence why Toyota invented Scion). If you’re sticking with your current market demographic, you need to find out what gimmicks old people like, and make the exterior design appealing to them as well. Buick needs to make its cars look more expensive than they are. I suspect the moving driver’s seat would be an unpopular gimmick as most old people are married and will have 2 people in the car more frequently… and the benefits of moving inwards would be lost on people commuting around town (for example, moving inwards makes it harder to see around a car in front of you for passing or making a left hand turn at an intersection). The sliding door would be good as no old person wants to have to practice yoga just to get into their small car. Roof idea is nice but don’t make it an expensive option or it will fail. Luggage mover is good and definitely would be a strong argument for this car among old people who carefully consider these types of things already (such as trunk floor height, lift over height, etc).
Good luck, and keep the new ideas coming!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:15 pm Wade Bryant said:
I’m curious if a car brand’s age-perception is something that “travels” with the brand, or if it has more to do with the vehicle offerings. If Buick had a youth-oriented vehicle like this, would young people avoid it?
Many brands offer products that appeal across a broad age-range. Is there any harm in that?
This is a great topic to discuss.
Thanks!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:49 am Buick Avant Concept - CarBuyersNoteBook said:
[...] gmlab Related PostsBuick Business Concept “MVP”General Motors to Postpone the Launch of the [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:56 am DM3 said:
The front of the silver car at the top of this discussion looks like it needs to be thought through again. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m seeing a lot of the last Skylark in the front of that car. That isn’t exactly complimentary. The rest of the car looks like it could work. As for the sliding door, that would be a pretty cool item on a really expensive car like the XLR, not so much on a more moderately priced Buick. If you’re going after the MINI, which I believe you could, with more modern styling, more powerful and reliable Ecotec engines, manual and automatic (DSG would be perfect if GM is working on one) transmissions, similar weight and also the ability to customize the car to a similar extent as one can when ordering a MINI.
If you’re going after Audi, I think you’d probably have to do more than the TT. Certainly a special model that competes directly against the TT would be in order, but you’d need a more mainstream car on the same platform like Audi has with the the A4 to support it. There is room under the Lacrosse for these cars.
Alternately, you could do something completely unexpected and come up with a sedan and hatchback/wagon comparable in performance to the Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Evolution but with a unique Buick style both inside and out. There is precidence for such cars at Buick: The 455 powered Stage 1’s, The Wildcat and who can forget the Grand National and GNX? Personally I’d like to see a hot rod Buick. It’s the same game as it was with those older cars. It’s just that todays hot rods just happen to have turbo fours and AWD.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:35 pm PhilR said:
With 455 Stage1, dual quad Nailheads, straight eights with “compound carburation” (the first 4 barrel application) and turbocharged and intercooled V6, Buick was often the performance leader at GM! It needs to get back to this position! With the demise of Pontiac, it’s even easier to justify now!
Make cars like the GSX Stage1, the SportWagon (this is a Buick name, not a Cadillac name…), the Wildcat and the Grand National…
Make Buicks with manual transmissions, posi rear axles, powerful premium powertrains, and premium styling features like pilarless hardtop designs that Buick pioneered on both coupes and 4 doors some decades ago.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 2:39 am Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | NiTS' Autos said:
[...] on. Check discover the ikon room beneath and click time the break to check the video. Then, click here to permit GM undergo what you conceive of its ideas for the diminutive payment market. Thanks for [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 2:48 am Vídeo y datos del futuro compacto de Buick | New Car Vídeo y datos del futuro compacto de Buick said:
[...] desde la nueva web de la General, GM Lab, el Gigante de detroit nos muestra varias fotos y recreaciones (¡algunas datan de hace [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 2:50 am PhilR said:
I made a few comments about the concepts on Flickr. I hope you’ll find some of them useful!
Regards.
Phil
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:19 pm Wade Bryant said:
EXCELLENT!
That is a great way to capture sketch-specific comments.
I’m not sure if anyone else thought to comment there, but I’ll make a point to read yours’ and others’.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 1:25 pm Wade Bryant said:
I checked out your comments on Flickr. Thank you.
I also checked out your Photostream. We share a lot of common (actually uncommon) design interests. I like the lawnmowers and appliances you have photos of. I almost bought a ‘67 Riviera for my first car but my father talked me out of it (it was a basket case). Nice Buicks.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 12:36 am Phil Racicot said:
I was almost shy to post these pics on Flickr! Anyway, I like industrial design and since I was a kid, I was always imprssed by appliances and almost everything that’s got an engine of any kind and my interest was greater if the object had some style! I really like GM-period Frigidaire appliances. Too bad GM got rid of this division in the late seventies. Here in Quebec, and even in France, people commonly use Frididaire to designate their fridges of any brand (and yes, GM used to build and sell Frigidaire appliances in many countries, including France!).
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 2:54 am Michael said:
I very much like the door concept. You may want to include a sensor that looks down as well. Just this afternoon, I was in a car next to a high curb. When we opened the doors, with no one in the car, they opened just fine. But when people got into the car, the doors scraped the sidewalk, because the car was now sitting lower!
The luggage presentation idea seems like more of an affectation to me. It’s nice that you don’t have to reach for it, and might help loading slightly, but I’d also view that as something likely to break, perhaps when the tray is stuck in a bad position.
It looks like you may have two cars there? The side profiles don’t seem like they match up. But it could be the camera angle. I’m not so hot on the grill or rear pillar, but otherwise, I like the exterior. The interior, however, seems rather stodgy to me.
The variable seating position idea is very interesting. I wonder how the changing seating position would affect the driver’s sense of their car’s boundaries. If they usually drive in the center, would they be more likely to hit something if they then move to the side? Also, it seems like entry and egress might be hard if the seat were to start out in the center position.
Consider a 1 seat in the front, 2 in back (or vice versa) configuration for improved aerodynamics. Or perhaps a 1,2,1 or 2,2,1 for larger vehicles.
I very much like that you are considering luxury in a small car. If you wish to be competitive, you will need excellent handling, firm, supportive seats, ergonomic controls that integrate with iPods and iPhones, ability to upgrade software and sensors to add useful new features, and excellent fuel economy and safety. If it handles like a boat, you won’t get BMW buyers or former Civic buyers. Make surpassing the 3 series your target.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:21 pm Wade Bryant said:
good feedback – particularly on the seating concepts. thanks.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 3:46 am Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | New Car Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 4:16 am Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | Muscle Cars News said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 4:55 am EmmanuelColeman said:
I think the exterior design that gets me the most is the one that shows red tail lights . I find the car interesting . Two things that I would like to see continue would be how the doors are represented . Could we see door handles recessed in such a way to be more like a Corvette . The stance of the vehicle with the wheels . I like them and how the give you sense of quality . But I would like to see the models with wheel sizes that are going to actually be what might be sold . The interior is nice . However I do not think that it needs to move as much as over to the center is there no sitting in the passenger side . However one thing I do like is the creative lines of the interior . The seats and the consoles . The arm rest that go up and down as a person enters or exits the car are great and is a feature I like . Other than that the black and white and sometimes red drawing of the exterior remind me of Old Hollywood . When Buick was still king .I like it ,
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 9:01 am Mikeeeeeeeeee said:
I worked for GM ( ACDelco) for 34 years. I probably had over 100 company cars. The Buick’s were always the best.
For 34 years I/we heard we have improved our quality by 5%, 10%, 15% etc.etc.etc. Over 34 years that is a lot of improvement.
I currently drive a 2008 Malibu. Not that is quality and improvement.
GM can do it. Spend an extra $200 on interior materials, like you did on the Malibu, and it will be a winner.
All of those designs were beautiful. Some of the features might be over the top,
Please keep up that kind of forward thinking.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 9:12 am Avant Concept: Buick’s new look at the small premium market [w/VIDEO] | AutoBuyNow! said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 9:50 am Avant Concept: Buick’s new look at the small premium market [w/VIDEO] said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 11:09 am Turbiodiesel said:
The problem that a maker of a premium small car faces is that often, it’s possible to get a very well-equipped small car for a very non-premium price. A loaded Honda Fit is only $18.5k. A Kia Soul loaded to the gills is several thousand less than that.
So it’s very important to avoid the reductive, typical approach to luxury by simply heaping on features and selling it for a premium price. Hyundai, Kia, Ford, Honda, and Toyota can simply bury you for less. Features and gizmos are not expensive to add to a car, and if I can get a Soul comparably equipped to a B-segment Buick for less, why would I go for the Buick?
Not that I wouldn’t go for the Buick, just to clarify, but you’ve GOT to think of an answer to that question.
As for the Avant concept….as it exists, I’m not terribly enthusiastic. The market for B-segment hatches in the US is small enough that I see no real reason to make it that small. Sure, plenty of people buy B-segment cars, as long as they cost thousands less than comparable C-segment cars (Yaris, Accent) or offer something that the C-segment car offered by that maker doesn’t (Fit, with its hatchback.) And undeniably, there are some who love cars that small. However, I think the majority of US consumers prefer either C-segment or midsize vehicles. We don’t have a tax or emissions control structure like Europe’s, where people buy tiny cars for financial reasons, and that’s where most sales in this country tend to lie. I don’t think there’s any reason, then, to sell a B-segment Buick. Leave the B-segment to Chevrolet, with the Aveo and Spark and maybe that Bare Necessities Car.
So, assume it’s a C-segment car. What makes it worth a look? I’d suggest that a radical new interior concept (which you hint at here with the movable pedals), a very significant surprise-and-delight feature, a feature-packed drivetrain, or interior packaging that’s unusually functional. In short, offer something that is not available on a larger car for any price. A Voltec drivetrain would be obvious, but what else? Seats cantilevered off the center tunnel, to boost the perception of space? An all-LCD instrument display? Make it look and feel like something from the future, like a concept car.
Also – no sedans, approach hatchbacks carefully, and consider something like a crossover.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 11:38 am Mitchell Silver said:
Sliding door is a great idea for tight spaces, but still doesn’t appear to leave much space to get feet in and out. Why not rear hinge the door (think Phantom Coupe, not minivan) and open up the footwell by enlarging the leading edge of the door a little. The sight of Kate Moss stepping out of this car would be worth the price of admission. If you can make a sexy car, that’s good. If you can make the owner sexy, that’s better! A similar application on a different vehicle (don’t confuse the sexy message) could be used to ease ingress/egress for people with mobility issues.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 1:21 am DM3 said:
Why not look at gullwing doors for that matter? The doors on the DMC-12, for example, take less space to open than a similar conventional door.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 11:52 am Chris Hawkins said:
I like the concept of a small premium car available from Buick. I also have to agree with previous posts that the materials and engineering need to be top notch and quality of execution is crucial, especially with the interior. The gimmicks and features like the doors and roof are fine – although likely to be quite expensive, but it will take a world class drivetrain (with power and economy) and a razor sharp chassis that is as fun to drive as a Mini to give a small Buick the credibility it needs to succeed and to get buyers to even look at Buick for this kind of vehicle. Buick’s typical client base will not be buying this car in sufficient numbers to make a business case for building it. The car needs to be special enough to attract a lot of buyers from other brands, foreign and domestic. Volvo already builds a small premium runabout similar in concept to the proposed Buick. However, it is a bit heavy, not particularly powerful nor economical, and although well-styed, it isn’t flying out our dealerships. Aside from not being quite special enough, a big reason for its lackluster sales performance is that for the same (or much less) money a buyer could buy a Mini or (soon) a Fiat 500 and Ford Fiesta. For Buick to step into this future market, it would have to have something really special. It needs to offer premium performance, styling and quality that eclipses those aspects of similar cars to be worth the cost differential. Candidly, I’m just not yet seeing it yet in the concept drawings and description. Something more radical is needed, like a premium sedan on the Voltec platform, or a small Riviera coupe on the Zeta platform
By the way, what Buick really needs to do is to focus on the Lucerne replacement. That is where Buick makes its money. And as the flagship model in the future, Buick’s next large car needs to be something really special, one that casts a halo over its entire product line. It is the fullsize luxury sedan that plays to Buick’s traditional strengths and core market. A new Lucerne is needed that steps up its game exponentially. It’s tragic that the Zeta platform is no longer being considered. The 4000 lb V6 Camaro proves that the platform can provide performance and economy. Something along this line would be amazing and give Buick a unique niche in the American market:
http://www.gminsidenews.com/naias/revitalization/Roadmaster.html
It could even be a “performance” hybrid, where the electric powertrain adds extra power when needed to an ecomomical gas engine, such as is done with the large hybrid Lexus.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm peteMT said:
(Rubbing eyes)
This might be the best things I’ve seen come out of your design studios in recent memory! Great work! The designs and images are fluid, coherent, and most importantly compelling in a ‘Buick’ way. Wait, what?
I own two Buicks. A ‘67 GS, and a ‘75 GS. Dad had a ‘71 Riviera with a built 455 that was quite the package. When I look at these premium compact concepts, I see a strong Buick design language which reminds me of the Riviera and the ‘75 GS. Buicks of this period were big, yes, but they had bold, graceful curves, distinctive styling, and they were good, solid cars. Great highway cruisers, and even somewhat fast if optioned correctly.
So, design-wise, you’ve nailed it. Particularly that interior.
The movable features are interesting, but I’ll say this: you need to utterly and completely nail solidity and quality and driving experience before things like these show up in production. If you can do both at the same time, then go for it. Do that glass roof at all costs. I’ve sat in a new Mustang with this option, and it’s a winner.
Ah, but what to call it? Avant just doesn’t do it for me. May I suggest Skylark. Then, and this I think is important, you can have the following models to get younger people such as me (40!) into the showroom and writing checks.
Skylark – basic model. Still very luxurious, but with the ‘least’ powerful engine option and a touring suspension.
Skylark GS – more performance oriented – optional manual transmission, more power, sport suspension, unique interior and exterior detailing and colors.
Grand National – yes, you knew this was going to come up, didn’t you? This is the top model. Limited production. Turbocharged, manual transmission, performance handling, bigger brakes, unique seats, blacked out trim inside and out. No compromises on this one. Black, mean, and can run the ‘ring with the best of them.
While I’m going to check out the new Lacrosse when it shows up, I will admit that the compact premium Buick holds considerable appeal and if it were here now, would be the first thing I’d check into. If it came as a convertible GS model, I’d drive it home!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 11:44 pm Michael said:
On naming, I’d have to agree – Avant is taken by Audi. But making a break from the names of the past would really help the brand. The Skylark name definitely does not have such good memories associated with it for me. I think one of the worst cars I have ever been in was a Skylark. Grand National – I’m sorry. No. I wouldn’t want a car with that name even if it were a BMW! I think that might be an auto race or a race track of some kind? But anything starting with the word Grand makes me think of 1970s cars. Ungood. Or some of the more recent stodgy cars – Grand Marquis, for example. What is grand about these cars? They’re large, ungainly, inefficient boats that don’t appeal to people under 80 very often. Names that attempt to sound foreign are a definite turnoff. No Coupe de SomethingOrOther, please.
Why not hold a contest on the web, and see what sorts of names people propose? If your name goes on the car, you win the car. You’ll get thousands of suggestions that way.
Also, the European style of giving cars a letter or number or some combination of those works rather well, because there aren’t really bad connotations associated with specific numbers or letters (for the most part).
Existing production car names I like (Some on cars I like, some on cars I don’t):
Prius (probably my favorite)
Aptera
Previa wasn’t bad
Antares (was rumored to be an Oldsmobile at one point)
Aurora (was an Oldsmobile at one point)
Intrepid
Stratus
Q45
FX
Give your cars names that sound high tech and forward looking, and that I feel like I could aspire to. Please, please, please don’t name them after racetracks or races. That feels a bit like calling it the Tax Form or the Easy Chair or the Corn Field.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm DM3 said:
So the Buick 1040 wouldn’t work for you? It could have three trim levels. The base 1040, the uplevel 1040EZ and the top of the line 1040A. Accountants and the people who work for the IRS would love it.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 6:31 pm Inline6 said:
I happen to think that “Apollo” would be a good name for a small Buick, whether it’s the upcoming Astra-based model, or smaller.
Very few remember the original ‘73-75 Apollos, which were simply rebadged Novas. So the past might not be a problem for its future use.
Special would be a good name, too. Particularly if the car was truly special.
Skylark might not work so well, though. It’s been used 3 separate times in Buick’s history (1953-54, 1961-72, 1975-98). More time is needed since the lacklustre ‘92-98 models were offered.
Skyhawk might be worth looking into, as it’s been 20 years since the last one rolled off the line. But unlike Skylark, there weren’t any particularly impressive Skyhawks made. They were all very lightly retrimmed H and J cars.
to this comment On October 22, 2009 at 4:41 am dfschim said:
“Skylark might not work so well, though. It’s been used 3 separate times in Buick’s history (1953-54, 1961-72, 1975-98). More time is needed since the lacklustre ‘92-98 models were offered.”
I don’t know why you would pick out the 92-98, they were the most powerful besides the midsized 78-79 350 and 71 and earlier V-8’s and they had the lowest drag sheet metal of any Skylark, Cd .319. The 72, 75-77, and 80-88 were the most lackluster Skylarks.
“Skyhawk might be worth looking into, as it’s been 20 years since the last one rolled off the line. But unlike Skylark, there weren’t any particularly impressive Skyhawks made. They were all very lightly retrimmed H and J cars.”
Actually I was very impressed with the Skyhawk back in the 80’s. If you compare the Skyhawk with the Cimarron you will see the difference between a well done small premium car and an improperly done small premium car.
The first generation Skyhawk had a 3.8 liter V-6 that was unavailable in the Chevy Monza for most of the time the first generation cars were produced. The 3.8 had more power than the smaller engines, but better balance than the nose heavy V-8 cars. A few years later this engine would be turbocharged for the T-type, Grand National, GNX and 20th anniversary Trans Am. It also had the most beautiful nose of any of the H cars in the version that had no grille above the bumper, and the classy Buick taillights. That is what I expect in a small premium car, a better engine, better styling, better handling, and more taste than the loud Chevy with a big spider painted on the hood.
The second generation Skyhawk was available with a turbocharged 4 cylinder in the T-type that was not available in the Cavalier. It also had a nose very similar to the best of the first generation Skyhawks with no grille above the bumper. The T-type also came with a a sport suspension aluminum wheels, and even had premium alloy wheels available. No one would mistake one for a Cavalier rental car from the front, and the hatchback did not look like one from the rear, plus even the sedans had the classy Buick taillights. The same cannot be said for the Cimarron which looked like a Cavalier with some extra chrome. The Cimarron also offered the same engines as the Chevy. The Skyhawk T-type said small premium, the Cimarron said expensive Cavalier.
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 5:40 pm Inline6 said:
I picked on the ‘92-98 Skylark because its styling was not universally loved (even though I thought it was cool), it didn’t sell as well as its predecessors, and earlier models had engine issues. By ‘95, most of those problems had been sorted, however by then the car just wasn’t advertized enough to get people to notice.
Compared to the Skylark’s competitors in that era (Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Mercury Mystique, etc.), it was pretty mediocre.
The ‘75-76 Skyhawks were so similar-looking to the Oldsmobile Starfire and the Chevy Monza 2+2 that you’d practically have to be an expert to tell them apart. By ‘77, they got a little bit better differentiated, but you’d still have to be a car guy to tell ‘em apart. The Skyhawk of that era may have had the excellent 3.8, but so did the Starfire. And it didn’t sell all that well, which is why it got canned midway through ‘80 (along with the Starfire) to boost production of the Monza and Sunbird in their last years on the H platform. And, by the way, you’re not remembering the H-body Skyhawks correctly…ALL of them had their grilles above the bumper. And the taillights were basically identical to those on the Monza and earlier Starfires.
Buick offered some “loud” ones, too like the Nighthawk and Road Hawk. Everything in that era (from the AMC Hornet AMX to the Plymouth Volare Road Runner to the Starfire Firenza, Sunbird Formula, and Monza Spyder) came with a tape-stripes-and-flared-arches package.
The later J-based Skyhawks looked very similar to the Firenza and Sunbird versions, with their soft noses and side-by-side tunneled quad rectangular headlights. And except for their soft noses, all 4 wagon versions were externally identical, except for the badges. Buick may have had the T-Types, but Chevy, Pontiac, and Olds all got special versions, too, in Cavalier Z24, Sunbird GT (with the 1.8 turbo), and Firenza GT forms. And the J Skyhawk was the only version on that platform to never offer the 2.8L V6 engine as an option, as well. The Skyhawk wasn’t done any more “right” than the Firenza was…and little except trim separated each version. And despite the Skyhawk name, it was never offered as a convertible, like the Cavalier and Sunbird were. Nothing on the J platform was competitive (for long) with the Japanese manufacturers. And few people remember the Skyhawk today.
At any rate, I do believe that Buick should offer a premium small car. But neither version of the Skyhawk was an example of how they should do it today, or how they should have done it in the past.
Today, Buick needs to be more than just a grille-and-taillight change from its platform mates.
to this comment On November 2, 2009 at 9:01 pm PhilR said:
They were almost rebadged Novas but they were available with the Buick V8 and there was even an Apollo GSX in 1974! It wasn’t one of the best-looking Buicks but I agree that it would be a good name! (and Apollo GSX would even be better!).
In the mid sixties there were also the Apollo 3500 and Apollo 5000 which were small cars powered by Buick’s aluminium 3.5 and 5 liter V8 engines.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm Buick Avant Project: Six Official Design Proposals for a Small Premium Model : Иномарка said:
[...] Via: GM Labs [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:04 pm Blueskyblue said:
I like this idea and concept for Buick, especially in the global arena. I am using the MINI, Audi A1, BMW 1-Series and upcoming Lexus small car as the thought-process jumping point as I would assume we are discussing that size and “theory” of vehicle. I believe the (non-US) global marketplace will actually be easier to design for than the US as there is already a somewhat defined small-premium market other countries while there really is not much of a market here in these regards. Also, Buick is definitely going to be a new-comer to whatever market there is and US customers are going to have many pre-conceived notions about the product – many of which will probably not “jive” with a Buick “small premium” vehicle. For Buick to be successful in these regards, they will need to deliver a product that meets at least some of those “Buick expectations” and more importantly, does not fail in any area that allows those “Buick expectations” to be used for derision or quick-dismissal of the product by the marketplace. Any Buick will need to be exceedingly stylish, exceedingly quiet, have up-to-date hardware and electronic offerings, and will need to offer something premium to make people realize the “Buick experience”. Premium offerings abound in the presentation; special lighting, transparent roofs, special cargo-management, unique doors, special paint treatments, etc – whatever it is needs to separate the Buick offering from “what you can get elsewhere” or on lower-market offerings. Buick will also need to decide early what road to tackle – the current table shows a short hatchback offering, a long/low sporty offering, a somewhat CUV-ish or tough offering to name a few – this will have to be pared down to the “purpose” of the product; is it a city vehicle (more european/asian targeted) or more a long-distance commuter (more US targeted). A lot to think about!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:52 pm stacy said:
I would buy this buick. and I am 35. roll it out. I have always wanted a nice small car, one without the budget interior.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:05 pm tmp00 said:
I really like the idea of the doors, but don’t see any reason to have sensors to control it. Why bother having the doors open two ways, other than the wow factor? Is it harder to exit the vehicle with the doors moving forward? I think in this case, less is more. Have the doors open forward (tight-spot mode) 100% of the time and be done with it.
Moving the instrument pod with the seats is an interesting idea, but I think it should stay an idea. Most people set their positions and never move them again. Wouldn’t it also really complicate engineering the side airbags? Great show-car idea, but not much practical use I think.
The trunk idea is wonderful (and I think a version was used on a Lincoln concept a few years back). That’s the sort of feature that should be in your cars: ones that make you think “why didn’t someone think of this before?” Anyone whose tried to lift a case of soda out of their trunk would love this- trunk liftover heights would no longer be an issue so cars could be more rigid and lighter.
Personally I would love a premium small car. I’m one person, living in Los Angeles, commuting ten miles to and from work with only the occasional long trip. I would want the car to be light enough that it could have a small engine and get decent mileage, but to be premium, everything I see or touch should be quality. Even the inside of the glove box.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:14 pm tmp00 said:
I see you answered the door issue earlier., sorry. But I do think paring down the electronic overkill on a production version would be a good idea. I see waaaay to many new Mercedes these days with one tail light working (and recently one brand new Jag with none at all) to want to see more gizmos that are going to fail expensively
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm Avant Concept: Buick’s new look at the small premium market [w/VIDEO] | The Ultimate Automobile News Site said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:07 pm Brian Ruppel said:
I’m excited to see GM considering putting Buick in the premium small car segment. I think it’s a better fit than Cadillac, and the styling of this little gem seems like a good start, specifically in the front.
In order to make a small car a premium car, it has to have things premium buyers will want on their larger cars. The obvious answers are top-end materials, fit & finish, powerful engine and great driving dynamic. But, what about things they cannot get on their massive uber-sedans?
The doors are an excellent start. They add functionality to a vehicle perceived as being “less functional” than a normal premium car. I can only imagine, though, that executing something like that would be prohibitively expensive. In other words, it looks like a feature that will make it onto a show-car, but be gone by the time the production model rolls around. That will only make the car a let down. Instead of thinking of the good things GM managed to get into the car, we’ll all be thinking of those cool doors the GM bean counters – once again – killed.
Why not just have something as simple as mini-van style doors that slide forward rather than back? No one who has ever owned a mini-van has missed hinged doors. I’m sure there’s a way to make them work, like putting the sliding rail under the car and having an articulated arm hold the top in place instead of a 2nd track.
Along the same lines, a keyless motorized rear door would be great… specifically if it slid UP and formed a slight canopy over the hatch. This would make it easy for someone lugging groceries to the car to load the car and stay dry if it’s raining. It would also get the door out of the way and essentially negate the need for that fancy luggage thing. Afterall, how often do any of us load such perfectly shaped bags? And, if we do, how often do they stay in place?
Other niceties that would make a small car stand out as a “premium” car is lighting. When you hit the unlock button on the keyfob, have lights under the door handles, side mirrors, front & rear bumpers and other places light up. Have the car light the area around it. My current car has the headlights come on, but they actually sometimes interfere with me seeing what’s around the car. Inside, having lights that a passenger can use at night without ruining the driver’s vision is always a plus. And, having lights for everything I might want to find in the dark is a must… having my passenger grope for the door pull is just inexcusable and embarrassing. One last thought on lighting is lighting for street signs. Anyone who has ever tried to find their way around a neighborhood they’re not familiar with at night has had the xenon-headlight nightmare. The light beam is so narrow that they don’t light up anything as high as a street sign… did you just pass 52nd avenue? Who knows? Taxis and police cars have “alley lights,” and I think they’d be a brilliant addition to any vehicle likely to be prowling city streets
Good luck, guys!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 4:37 pm Wade Bryant said:
good advice. I have noticed the lighting issue you brought up.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 1:48 pm Matt said:
I think the concept and styling is good and GM does need to try to capture other parts of the luxury market, but is it really worth for 10-20K units per year?
Something like this is needed sure, but why continue to try to transform the U.S. market to match the rest of the world? Why not recognize that there are certain preferences here in the U.S. and many people in the luxury market are not necessarily interested in buying a small car at a premium price? There is still a market for some of those larger luxury vehicles some were calling “boats”.
Those larger luxury sedans don’t have to be boats, they can be nimble with good handling, have decent power, and look sleek.
I think it is just foolish to abandon Buick’s traditional strengths in any attempt to “improve” the brand, why not expand what Buick is instead?
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 3:15 pm GM’s Lab Shows Buick Avant Concept | Lancilo USA said:
[...] A big part of The Lab’s goal is to get consumers’ responses to concept cars, so feel free to let GM know whether you love or hate its Avant concept by visiting the site here. [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 3:28 pm Terry said:
Sounds like a pretty cool vehicle. I’m not too sure about the name. Sounds way too close to Avanti.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 3:35 pm GermanChevyDriver said:
I am not sure, whether it’s a smart move to calling this Buick concept “Avant”. Hint: Keep in mind, that there already used to exist an Audi Avant, referring to the station wagons by Audi. I’d be reluctant in taking over specific terms or even nameplates from competitors.
Otherwise the idea of a small premium car by Buick may be very interesting.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 4:54 pm Wade Bryant said:
Your right. We didn’t think too much about the name. Internally we were calling this Action Avant, a name conjured up by Andy Hanzel to evoke a busy, urban lifestyle and a word-play on the Citroen Traction Avant.
The names we give our internal projects never go through the rigor (or expense) that a production car or even a concept car name would go through. Maybe we need to spend more time on the names before tossing them around on the LAB.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 1:17 am Phil Racicot said:
Wade, thanks for all the responses to our comments. There is a lot of activity on this blog and I think it’s in part due to all the feedback we get from you and other people from your team!
I’m not too surprised about your reponse above and I’ll quote my own previous post in a reply to yours!
“I’m not sure I like what I see in the first picture, the “C” pillar looks like the one in the 1968-68 Skylark coupe (in my opinion, one of the worst Buick designs of the sixties). But at least, it seems to be a true pilarless hardtop. If this premium feature hits production in a Buick, I’ll be impressed by new GM!
About the name of the concept, I’m not happy about it, I mean not at all… It’s another french name that I don’t like and I hate even more what it means! As my first language is French, this reminds me some Wrong Wheel Drive cars from a French brand that I hate: the Citroën Traction Avant… If you want inspiration from old small french cars, at least choose cars like the RWD Peugeot 504 Ti, my all time favourite european car!
The 504 coupe
http://www.trulinesteering.com.au/Images/Gallery/Peugeot%20504%20Coupe.jpg
The 504 sedan
http://www.clubpeugeotuk.org/images/504TiSal02.jpg”
I should add that I don’t like the Citroën Traction Avant, not because of it’s style (it’s one of the few designs from this brand that I actually like, the other being the ID/DS models). But what I hate so much about the Traction Avant is what it introduced to the auto industry: popular front wheel drive cars. If this would have remained a marginal feature found on cars like the Cord 810, the Toronado and the Eldorado, I’d be OK with that and I’d just buy something else but now that all the products from my favourite brand are FWD, it bothers me!
I hope that you and your team will be able to do something about it and design nice premium RWD Buicks that will be produced and sold in much greater numbers than the actual FWD models!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 3:39 pm GARRETT said:
I really enjoyed the interior pics. Leather, wood, and metal are what interiors should be make of. Wood looks great in interiors, and not the oober glossy plastic looking crap, regular wood. I dont understand why there needs to be so much gloss on car wood.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 12:18 pm Darren said:
I agree with Garret, when considering wood in the interior of an automobile, why is it always glossy? Why not look at a satin finish. When you look at contemporary wood furniture, it always has a satin finish; glossy finishes are too “traditional”. Also, what about looking at bamboo veneers as an option for the wood; it’s both contemporary and green.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 3:42 pm Street Life Auto Club » Blog Archive » GM’s Lab Shows Buick Avant Concept said:
[...] A big part of The Lab’s goal is to get consumers’ responses to concept cars, so feel free to let GM know whether you love or hate its Avant concept by visiting the site here. [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 4:05 pm Darren said:
I love the 2+2 coupe for your small premium concept. What I love about this concept are the coupe’s bold, confident, sleek, sporty, dynamic, timeless, and sensual design. That is what a Buick should be.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 4:55 pm InvictaMan said:
I am “all” in favor of Buick getting the jump on the domestic, small premium market. It is inevitable that this is the direction of the future. At least until we can find renewable energies that can propel luxury barges in an economical, environmentally conscious manner.
As far as exterior designs presented here in the Lab, my personal preference leans toward those by Brent Kim and Robert Melville. They seem to capture more of the design language that we Buick lovers tend to expect, but with very modern interpretations. As far as exterior design, it has to say Buick heritage, but it obviously has to do it in a way that is exciting. Nothing polarizing to the point that it is trendy. My analogy of Buick design has always been a cat. Fluid, moving when standing still, muscular, positioned to pounce, yet all of this in a package that can sneak up on you before you go “whoa look at that!”
Technology is important for a Buick. Thinking ahead requires tech that is as revolutionary as power steering was in its day. Things that will directly improve the driving experience and ride quality. Radar sensing and smart cameras are great. Information technology a must. Perhaps ways to get this information more in the sight-line of the driver. Full-color, heads up displays for NAV, at least ones designed into the gauge cluster. Love the door idea and I agree with an earlier poster that said “why not all the time.” No dings, ever again, when this goes industry wide. Amen. The micro-pergola louvered roof is nice, as long as it is sandwiched between movable glass. No substitute for fresh air roofs, especially in a smaller, premium vehicle. Ambient lighting a must. Task lighting as well, including puddles.
I am one of those buyers that needs usable cargo area for work, but hates driving an SUV. I would love to save fuel, haul items and still have a driving experience that comes only with a smaller, nimble platform. Not to mention one that looks less utilitarian. This is definitely in the same vein as the original LaCrosse Concept. A car, with a cargo bay. Your articulating cargo tray is a great thing for that application. Please don’t forget about we professionals when designing the smaller vehicles.
Bottom line:
Efficient use of space (including interior storage, which is lacking in the new LaCrosse), respectable (if not adrenaline producing) power, varying ride settings, quiet-tuning, high quality build specs (both exterior and interior) and interior/exterior styling that is classically modern.
Thanks for this great opportunity to let current and future Buick buyers (and just plain ol’ automotive enthusiasts) help to mold the direction of this brand. It always has been a great company, just neglected for too many years. The rebirth is exhilarating! Good work!
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 7:44 pm throwback said:
Interesting concept. I think the key to a small premium car is premium materials. Even the cheapest compact can be had with navigation, satellite radios, leather interior etc. To sell a small premium car you need to have high quality materials and build quality. Unique features (which this has) is another way to distance a small premium car from just a small car. The sliding seat/column is nice touch, but I would suggest having the passenger seat slide. this would allow easier entry to the rear and if you have the front passenger seat fold flat it would make the car more flexible.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 7:59 pm GARRETT said:
Something thats very important in regards to the interior is the thickness of the seat. This is especially important when dealing with compact cars. Seat backs have to be shrunk by at least half. You desperately need to find a way to do this. Anyone who has ever been in the back seat of a compact knows that every inch helps.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 10:30 pm Road and Driver » Blog Archive » GM’s Lab Shows Buick Avant Concept said:
[...] A big part of The Lab’s goal is to get consumers’ responses to concept cars, so feel free to let GM know whether you love or hate its Avant concept by visiting the site here. [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 10:57 pm GM’s Lab Shows Buick Avant Concept | I Like Cars! said:
[...] A big part of The Lab’s goal is to get consumers’ responses to concept cars, so feel free to let GM know whether you love or hate its Avant concept by visiting the site here. [...]
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 1:19 am Alex B. said:
My comments are not about these specific concepts, but rather about the overall “small premium” segment.
I’m 47 years old, I can afford an entry-level luxury or mid-level luxury car, but I drive a Scion.
The reason? It’s because although I like comfort, convenience and good looks in a vehicle, I can’t justify to myself driving something bigger than I need – 90% of the time I’m the only one in the car, so even a midsize is oversized to me – why haul around all that extra metal and take the consequent hit in MPG and performance?
Of course, the downside is that in the USA market, small cars are cheap cars. My Scion’s reliable, but the interior is fairly spartan and made of cheap materials, and there are few luxury features.
So for me, “small premium” is great – I can have my cake, and eat it too. I love the idea that can get a car that has the comfort and quality of a luxury car, but in the footprint of an economy car.
Right now, I know that there are already a few choices out there – such as the Mini or the BMW 1 series, but for me the Mini’s just *too* trendy, and the BMW is hard to justify when it’s basically a 3-series with a few feet chopped out of the middle.
As far as what *I* would want in a small premium vehicle, I only ask for two things beyond the usual: first, a choice of colors that goes beyond the blah standard luxury palette of silver, black, and dark stodgy reds and blues, and second, windows that one I can actually see out of! (I hate the current trend of “gun slit” windows and wide pillars).
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 1:24 am Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) - Escalade-EXT.com said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 7:16 am GM’s Lab Shows Buick Avant Concept | V8 Rangers and Muscle Cars said:
[...] A big part of The Lab’s goal is to get consumers’ responses to concept cars, so feel free to let GM know whether you love or hate its Avant concept by visiting the site here. [...]
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 7:46 am Marg said:
I love the new concept of Avant. It could help change the perception of Buick if it can be brought to market fast. On a trivial note has anyone thought about purse storage? Most everyone carries some kind of tote and other than the trunk or backseat there isn’t a convenient place to store them. Has anyone thought about storage under the front seat for these things?
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 10:41 am Wade Bryant said:
That’s a good suggestion. We have tote-sized storage on all our SUVs but we need some solutions for this car. Under the seat is a possibility.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 11:03 pm Nathan said:
How about a glove box integrated into the door panel.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 11:32 am InvictaMan said:
Storage is a definite plus, especially in a compact where you are in tighter quarters and seating space is limited. I would also suggest retractable tie-down straps for the cargo area. Items shifting around in an SUV is a big problem; imagine what it would be like in a more nimble compact. Plus, the noise of loose items in a cargo compartment that is open to the cabin would be detrimental to quiet-tuning. For small items, I say a well-designed, pop-up cargo container, or one that is hidden under the cargo floor is a must for such a vehicle. For compacts that have dedicated trunks, it would be nice to have small stowage under the seats or floor, for cameras, books, etc.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 8:00 am Bill Borland said:
With the big drive towards lighter vehicles going full steam ahead there, seems to be one big hangup……..when will the auto manufacturers realize ALL cars do NOT require 4 seats and 4 doors……..The tendancy toward small commuters should bring out more 2 door 2 seat entrys. This would also be a huge savings in materials and developement time…….how about it Big 3?
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 2:42 pm Matt said:
The Big 3 tried it before and there wasn’t that much of a market for it.
Also, alot of people look upon the Smart Car and the like that are that small with a certain amount of scorn.
I am 6′1″ tall and reasonably large in frame and I used to drive a Dogde Neon before moving to a Pontiac Torrent crossover and I vowed two things to myself when I got rid of the Neon: 1.) I would never drive another economy car 2.) I would never drive anything that small again.
I own one vehicle. I don’t need two, however with a car the size you are suggesting I would need a 2nd because you couldn’t carry hockey equipment or camping gear or even groceries.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 1:48 am Phil Racicot said:
When I see all the newer (compact and full size) pickup trucks on the road with 4 doors and tiny beds compared with those with regular cabs and more practical long beds, it makes me think that many people truely want (and need) 4 doors or at least 4 seating positions! And I also think that many of these truck owners don’t really need a pickup truck (or a SUV) but can’t find a car that suits their tastes and needs (having a frame, RWD and some towing capacity).
I’m ok with an unitized body if it’s very solid but I really can’t do without RWD and some towing capacity…
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 12:50 pm Michael said:
On seats: One of the things that I look for when I shop for a car are seats that fit my body comfortably. Unfortunately, this can be rather difficult to find, despite the high adjustability of some seats – I’m shorter than average, and also thinner than average. What would be great would be to be able to get a body scan somewhere, submit my measurements, and have a seat manufactured to fit *me*. (Or at the very least, programmed to adjust itself to my body shape.) You could probably start with small, medium, and large seat widths and heights.
On design: Auto companies often show us really exciting designs at auto shows, but by the time the product reaches the market, what we get really looks nothing like the show car. The materials aren’t as nice. The shapes look more like every other car on the road. The styling that made those cars exciting is only hinted at in the final product. Why do you lose so much between show and sale? Why not keep most or all of that in production? Apple somehow manages to do remarkable engineering to get products to work in packages that are lust inducing. They push the technology to the limits, but manage to pull it off every single time. Can you do the same?
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm Wade Bryant said:
I like your suggestions on seating (custom-fit or super-adjustable). This would be a good area to concentrate on for Small Premium.
I think we are doing a better job of delivering show-car-like design and material execution to the market. The new Buick LaCrosse is quite impressive on the road and in the interior. We always struggle with how far to push the concept car designs. It’s easy to ignore critical production requirements to make the concepts exciting. Each concept car is bounded by different degrees of reality. Some things that every designer would like to do (and get away with on show cars) just wouldn’t meet production requirements ex:bumper performance, pedestrian safety, material durability, etc.. We try to push ourselves to reach beyond current reality when we design show cars to help push innovation on future production cars and I think we’re making progress.
Yes, everyone admires Apple for its design and innovation. Applying their process to an automobile isn’t as simple as it sounds given the relative complexity of our products, but we are becoming quicker to market with best-in-class cars and trucks. Our last half-dozen-or-so new products are class-leading.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 1:27 pm Adam said:
Nice touch. With GM boiled down to its core products, we’re already seeing the benefits. The coupe design with the flowing arches is the best; I would be proud to own something like this. (While another looked like a CRZ wannabe). Innovative doors and slide-out hatch were thoughtful. This concept is something that would knock Audi off balance. Buick has always been known for quality and it’s they’re quickly gaining ground with a wider spectrum of buyers. While no one could have predicted enthusiast’s willingness to see Buick morph so quickly, it’s quite obvious why it’s happening; they’re turning elsewhere to replace their Saturns and Pontiacs.
Some Americans seem to think a smaller sporty design can’t fall under a luxury category. This isn’t so. Nothing would be more welcome as owning a well-built Avant here in Chicago (and every major city) where parking and tight spaces is an everyday chore. Not to mention relief at the pump. Europeans have been doing phenomenal with smaller/sporty designs. It’s time Americana owns this category.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 2:51 pm Wade Bryant said:
The more posts like yours I read, the more confident I am that this is a great idea.
Thanks for the comments.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 1:28 pm Paul S. said:
I know it’s larger than the vehicle you are showing but I would be interested in a A3-type vehicle from GM with an AWD and diesel option and 4-doors for adequate storage when the seats are down. My wife would love to replace her un-premium Saab 9-2x. IMO the Avant looks a little small in the sketches that I saw.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 1:41 pm Buick has big plans for a small concept car named Avant | Mibz.com said:
[...] can click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market car to be named Avant. Hope [...]
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 5:17 pm Rausch said:
Just how “big” is this small premium going to be? Could u name other cars that would be similar in size? I would also like to see some of the design elements from the riviera concept included in this car (noticed the wheels were similar), mainly i’m referring to how the Riviera’s front end looked, and how the roofline and rear quarter window looked.The only problem is I don’t know if those design elements would look proportional or not, because I don’t know just how big the Avant is going to be (Volt sized, Lincoln c concept sized?).
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 5:58 pm Buick Rethinks Compact Premium With Avant Concept | GM Authority said:
[...] Once you’re feasted your eyes in the gallery below and watched the video, let Buick know what you think of the Avant concept here. [...]
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 6:24 pm Elijah Holsinger said:
This is what Buick needs along with what the Buick-GMC dealers need. With the demise of Pontiac, the dealers do not have anything for consumers who are looking for “sport”. I am not saying we need a Buick “Camaro”. But perhaps a coupe that could even be fwd that looks like the 350/370 Z would do wonders for the Buick Brand. The upcoming Buick Regal and “Astra” are a nice addition to the Buick portfolio but younger generations demand performance or the availability of getting a sporty version of a car. I suggest that Buick havet a Regal sedan and wagon along with the “OPC/VXR” trim with 2.8 liter 325 hp AWD. The “Astra” has a performance addition as well and it should be brought over. OLD GM would deny my request for a Buick Regal wagon along with the performance version due to the fact it would interfere with the Cadillac CTS lineup. I disagree. With GM selling off SAAB and pricing the Regal “OPC/VXR” correctly, GM can offer 2 wagons to American consumers. Price the Buick from $23k to $31k with the “OPC/VXR” @ $33k.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 7:15 pm Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | Car Photo Blog said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 10:29 pm Jean-Gabriel Grenier said:
GM understend what the draver’s would have
since one years i’m in love, more than i never was with General Motors because they made real car
as the image of GM
i’m very impress by the progress of General Motor
GM will be my favorite compagny for ever
I love General Motor car’s
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 11:15 pm Mike said:
The car labeled 2+2 coupe looks a bit like a modern-day second gen corvette (from the front/top at least…not so much from the side). I think its all in the shape of the rear window in that image but I think it looks fantastic. Definitely something I’d consider simply because of its styling. Add a nice Turbo-4 cylinder making somewhere in the vicinity of 220hp and about the same torque with a flat torque curve that comes on at or below 2,000 rpm and we’re in business.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 11:20 pm andrew said:
Overall design and material quality is key for premium vehicles. It gives a sort of elegance. I wondered if GM would take Buick back to that sort of ‘Classical Elegance’ of old that would make them stand out more than the modern styling of Cadillac. Kind of like the Mini, but better lines and more unique.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 1:42 am Harold N said:
Maybe this is out of left field, but I do love the concept. In fact, I almost feel like you’ve been reading my mind! I have no kids, and mostly drive alone or with a date. I sometimes need to haul stuff, so a 3 door hatch would be perfect for me. I like the sliding doors and the ability to move the controls.
But please make the car big enough to hold a full side adult! Make it easy (or at least possible) to get in and out. I’ve been car shopping for a while now, and it frustrates me no end that my choices are between cars that meet my functional needs but that are too cramped to enjoy, and behemoths that seat 3 to 5 more people than I’m ever going to transport. Why in God’s name can’t I get a classy, fun to drive car that looks good on a date, has come cargo room, and fits my all-American ass?
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 3:00 pm Wade Bryant said:
Almost all small cars have somewhat scaled-down space for the driver. The idea of move-over-mode was to allow the driver to sit in the same relationship to the drivers door and roof as he/she would in a large car. If you are the only passenger in a smaller car, why not use all the available space. I know quite few commenters have said this wasn’t an important feature, but I think if they are used to a midsize-or-larger car and sat in a mini-car, they’d miss the feeling of spaciousness.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 3:49 pm GARRETT said:
I think the sliding seat is a great idea. Im 6′ and often find myself sliding to one side of the seat or the other depending on if theres another person in the car with me.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 1:59 am kobo1d said:
I like the idea of a small premium Buick, my fiancee just purchased a Mazda 3 because the car is small, but isn’t de-contented or built cheaply. This seems like a good new direction for Buick to go in. Something that is stylish and premium enough that a younger buyer might desire, but inexpensive enough to afford. And practical to boot.
Build me a stylish Buick GTI and I’ll take a look, I promise.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 3:04 pm Wade Bryant said:
The Mazda 3 has been mentioned quite a few times in this discussion. If you are content with the “3″, what would make you switch to a Buick? What could we provide you that Mazda doesn’t?
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 3:55 pm GARRETT said:
More exterior LEDS. I think all those gimmicky things are cool, and pretty practical (although Id rather see scissor doors). However, I just hope they dont make the price go up too much.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 6:23 pm Michael said:
I’ll take a stab at that. I haven’t driven the current 3, but I have driven some of its competitors, such as the Civic. I’m also a big fan of the Prius and Insight. Here’s what would get me out of one of those:
-Match or beat their fuel efficiency, safety, and reliability.
-Keep their styling. No chrome. Great aerodynamics. Eliminate the grill to the extent possible. Futuristic styling. There’s no reason that a comfortable car has to look pretentious or can’t be exciting.
-Excellent handling.
-High quality materials.
-Offer luxury features that are generally hard to find in that segment. I like comfortable leather seats, but you often can’t get them at all on small cars. I want a really good (and preferably easy to upgrade) navigation system built in, but it should be standard, not a $2000 option. (Seriously – you can buy one for $200 at Best Buy!) This is where they really fall down – why can’t I get something with the comfort and handling of a BMW without having to buy a much larger car? I don’t like or want a large car.
-Price: I’d pay a reasonable premium for a luxury version of an Insight or Civic, but not tremendously more.
Actually, you should have these sorts of features in every car, at least as options. I don’t want to choose betwixt small with poor quality and materials and large with high quality. For every car, offer basic features and high end features, and let us choose which combinations we want.
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 2:51 am kobo1d said:
That depends on the changes made to the ‘3′ in the upcoming years.
Maybe this could work on the RWD Alpha platform, debuting alongside the future Camaro. The tricky part would be differentiating it between the Camaro and ATS. I think the three or five door body style along with some of the luxurious touches here could work, if it was truly built to be the new class of world class and priced competitively.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 3:33 am GARRETT said:
Im a big fan of the new Astra yall are planning on making a Buick. Ive only seen the 4 door hatch and not the sedan version (except for the heavy camo ones), but I hope you make it a bit more masculine. Im talking about just tweaking the front and rear bumpers to butch it up a little more. I know you were already going to change those when you make it a Buick Id just like to see those changes being a big more aggressive; this is just my personal opinion. Id also like to see more LEDs.
Also, something Ive noticed on the Opel version is that the entire taillight is covered in a red plastic and not just the areas that need to be red. I mean the back up lights. It makes the back up lights look pink when theyre suppose to be white. I hate it when car makers do this. It make the lights look cheap because the manufactures dont take the time worry about smaller details like this.
Thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 7:56 am Wesley Baker said:
Some one said the ideas on this car are very gimmicky but I see them as quite usefullto those that are elderly. Its the elderly after all thattend to have the money to buy premuim cars. By 2050 in Britan and many other countries there will be more elderly than young people.
From my transport ergonomic lectures I can see alot of these features being really usefull. I mentioned people who are lederly but theres also those with mobility issies such as the disabled. The sliding door would be goo for a wheelchair user and the retractable arm rests could help them to manouvre themselves into the passenger or drivers seat. The sliding chair could free up space for a folding wheelchair. Its nice to see a car that is both beautifull and could if put into production provide great mobility solutions.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 3:07 pm Wade Bryant said:
smart thinking…
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 11:18 am Race Munki said:
When I first saw the design, I thought, “it reminds me of an Infiniti Q45. The windows are what keyed me. Some of the other comments are correct. If you are going to go luxury, the engine should be of a quality build. IF, the engine is sub-par with what is already in the parts bin, it is going to flop. The materials inside should be of a high quality, but not so much that you are going to price yourself out of existence. The arm rests are a nice trick, but would ultimately prove a pain as most want to get-in-and-go. If you have to wait for the car to set itself up, customers will get annoyed quickly. The Luggage Porter is neat but, not needed. If your that lazy, then your not going to get your own luggage anyway. Plus, if space is tight behind the vehicle, it becomes useless and extra weight. The best features are the roof and the doors. I am living in Japan right now and a feature like the doors would be welcome in most situations. The roof louvers are great because it lets in plenty of light (like a convertible)
but allows added shade on demand. You won’t feel boxed in. Although with the louvers, wouldn’t that create some drag on the vehicle? There is one thing that I would change though. That typical Buick grill. Pick something that flows more evenly with the design. Still says “Buick”, but apart from the pack. Think Audi.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 12:25 pm Dan F. said:
Buick is making all of the right moves. The new LaCross is a car I am considering when it is time to replace my currnet car. The rumored new Regal is also a smart move. But Buick needs a Halo Car and slide eight in the presentation could be it. If that design is based off of the Pontiac Solstice Coupe most of the engineering work is already done. Just put in one of your new Buick interiors and you have a Hit!
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 8:28 pm John D said:
I find the various designs to be appealing, and I’d like to know more. For one thing, The question was asked : what size car we are talking about? It would be nice to see the designs in relation to a shadow of the 2010 LaCrosse. That way we could see just how “small” this car would be.
Also it would be nice to know more about the power plant and drive train envisioned. A turbo charged 4 cylinder maybe? On a personal note, I would also like to request true dual exhaust, with two options, one the quiet tuning version if thats a GM requirement, and a second option with some deep sounding growl. No use just looking pretty.
The dash board as shown is unappealing. A sports car should have guages including oil pressure and volts or amp meter. There appears to be no room for that in the proposal unless the readout is digital. But sport dashboards look best in analog readouts. Also the board is kinda just round and in your face. Unless there is a monster air bag or something else this space is needed for I’d like to see more of the styled dashboards that made Buick the classics they are. My personal opinion is the 95-99 Riviera Dashboard is a good basis for what I mention.
Lastly, drop the gimmicks if they would be a hinderance to bringing the car to market. Toyota and Nissan are already in this market, and it would behoove GM to get the car out there now while the theme is popular, rather than 2 years from now when those interested are already making a slew of payments on another brand.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 8:55 pm Michael said:
Wade: I wonder if the idea of a movable seat solves the wrong problem. You want to make good use of the space in a small car, right? But certain things are going to remain fixed:
1) The ideal distance between the driver and each button (for distance and visibility)
2) The need for the driver to be able to comfortably view certain instruments without twisting or stretching
3) The tactile feel and response of controls relative to the driver
4) The geometry of the seat relative to a specific driver (for comfort and safety reasons)
5) The positions of safety devices such as airbags and seatbelts relative to a specific driver
6) The relative power and acoustics of each of the speakers, relative to each person in the car
7) Visibility for the driver in all directions
Now, if you move the seat sideways, but don’t move the controls, most of these variables are going to change pretty dramatically. That’s not good from the perspective of the driver, even if it gives them more room. But that means completely reconfiguring much of the dashboard too.
Instead, why not create the illusion of more space, as well as improving ergonomics, by keeping the seat fixed but moving the controls? The center console need not be firmly attached to one spot. (As a short driver, I can’t even drive some larger cars because the controls are too far away to be useful!) Place the controls on a “floating” panel, or set of panels that can be moved around relative to the driver. Allow each button to be programmed for the driver’s choice of function (See the Optimus Maximus keyboard as an example at http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/ ). If you need more space, move the panels back. Need them closer, you can do that too. That way, each driver can have a cockpit that is exactly as large as they need it to be. (Works for large cars too!) You can then use some of the freed center space for better ventilation or for controls and displays for the passengers.
You can also create the illusion of more space by creating a subtle concavity to side panels, the roof lining, and other surfaces. If done right, this won’t make the car any larger, but it will free up a little bit of interior volume. More importantly though, people will *perceive* the interior as larger. If these surfaces flow nicely into other portions of the car interior, it will feel much more pleasant.
Boeing is using this design concept in the new 787, because people tend to feel cramped in aircraft.. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_787_interior_mockup.jpg and http://www.boeing.com/randy/images/787_interior_lg.jpg
(Also, do consider hiring me as a consultant. I think it would be fun!
)
to this comment On September 29, 2009 at 10:23 am Wade Bryant said:
Yes, the move-over-mode seat does create many challenges. We have discussed which other parts of the car need to move with the seat for all the reasons you brought up.
The real purpose of the idea is to give the driver more hip room, shoulder room and lateral head room. In a small car these areas can look and feel tight.
Thanks for putting together all your suggestions. The links to other sites are helpful.
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 12:18 am Andrew Charles said:
I love the sleek fastback versions of the Avant, and think Buick could use both coupe and full 5-seat hatchback versions. For premium cars Buick should benchmark I think Lancia actually sets the standard—beautiful interiors, loads of equipment, (glass roof, automated manuals, premium sound system), and gorgeous styling.
The new Delta is exactly the kind of car in size and style Buick needs to offer—a lower-midsize D-segment hatchback rather than a compact with slightly longer wheelbase than the Astra and Cruze for more flexible and expandable rear legroom; much like a smaller more luxurious version of the Opel Signum. GM produced some gorgeous fastback sedans in the forties for Cadillac, Buick and Chevrolet and GM should draw on that heritage when designing a premium smaller car—the Bugatti 16 C Galibier and Porsche Panamera show how this can be done, but I think GM could do better.
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 1:04 am Andrew Charles said:
A premium smaller car should be a treat, an indulgence. That doesn’t mean that it merely has a lot of premium features, it also costs more to buy. If it costs the same as a Honda or Toyota, how is that an indulgence? It should be “I was going to buy a Civic, but my tax refund was more than I expected, so I decided to splurge on a Buick Avant—you just have to spoil yourself sometimes.” You can’t target Lexus (and I presume you mean the ES 350 and RX 350 not the IS 350 and GS 350) and Acura if Cadillac is already occupying those price segments. Volume isn’t everything, an aspirational brand can’t be within the reach of everyone, or what is there to aspire too? For a Buick, perhaps you pay a little more than you would for a Honda, and perhaps it’s no more practical, but the customer should be willing to pay more for the feel, the look, and the little extras that set it apart. A VW may offer Start/Stop, regenerative braking, and a automated DSG transmission for a little extra, but on a Buick or Cadillac they should be standard (traditional automatics don’t offer the same efficiency on smaller cars as they do on larger more powerful models).
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 1:39 am thegriffon said:
Some elderly people have the money for premium cars, but the majority are struggling on pensions and social security payments that don’t keep up with escalating expenses. If you want to target the elderly you need first of all a cheap small car that is easy to get in and out of, with few controls. A compact MPV like the Toyota Raum and Porte are good examples—a high roofline and seating position so they don’t have to stoop down too much, a low flat floor that doesn’t require them to step up or down to enter, a wide opening for easy access, simple controls and a high gear lever, and mobility options (available on every model in the Japanese market). They not just good for the elderly, but also young families with strollers and car seats, but a tight budget.
to this comment On September 29, 2009 at 10:27 am Wade Bryant said:
We do have several other projects that address the needs you’ve brought up. This project is aimed more towards luxury than easy-access, but we hoped some of our features would make a small luxury car easier to use for everyone.
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 5:38 am dfschim said:
I don’t like the Avant in the video for a small premium Buick. The rear doesn’t look like a Buick and the front doesn’t look like a small Buick.
The short overhang and integrated spoiler at the top of the hatch remind me of the Ford Focus I drive. To this American those design features scream cheap and European. We don’t tax our cars on length here, give us a little more rear overhang. That will give the car better aerodynamics and make the luggage porter totally unnecessary. A longer bumper will also allow a 5 mph bumper with shock absorbers that doesn’t get damaged when bumped. Cars in the US had that feature in the early 80’s; that is a premium feature that will make the car look more American. They can be integrated into the design very well, just look at the Skyhawks. For the rear hatch design look at the Volt shape, and then add Skyhawk design cues.
The waterfall grille is what makes the car look like an old man’s Buick. The Skyhawk had no grille above the bumper. That is more appropriate for a small premium car. It shouldn’t be a downsized big Buick.
I agree with those who commented that gull wing doors would be great for a small Buick. The scissor doors recall Lamborghini exotic cars, but the gull wing doors recall Mercedes cars that had luxury and good visibility as well as performance.
At 6′2″ tall I don’t like the idea of any motor driven parts in the roof stealing headroom. I prefer manual sunroofs or T-tops. A plastic film like that put in photochromic glasses wouldn’t steal any headroom at all and it would offer varying degrees of darkness.
As far as the sideways moving chair and steering wheel go, the solution is to never make a mini car/ A class Buick. A subcompact/ B class Skyhawk and a compact/ C class Skylark would be fine without the sideways moving chair.
I like adjustable arm rests, but the center arm rest and door arm rest have to be able to be at the same height. If the door arm rest is fixed just fix the center arm rest at the same height. From what I could see on the video, the arm rests were not adjustable fore and aft. That is more important than adjusting up and down. I have trouble with some cars because the arm rest does not go far enough forward. Other people who drive manual transmission cars complain the armrests are too far forward. The obvious solution is an armrest that slides fore and aft. Just be sure to make the adjustment notches strong enough that it doesn’t slide backwards or forwards while driving, or put a button on it you have to push to adjust the arm rest.
For platforms the Opel Corsa and Astra will do fine with the 1.6 turbo, 2.0 turbo and 6 speed automatic transmissions. There should also be hybrid versions available.
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 12:02 pm MikesZ said:
I really hope you can build a car like this. This is the first Buick (design) in many years that I would consider actually buying. The lines of this design are more aggressive than the other extant/contemporary Buicks, which I find to be rather bland. I am age 46 so a Camaro is a little too “over the top” for me and not very practical as a daily driver…but I’m not dead either! I still want to drive something above subcompact, yet below mid-sized, with a livable interior (e.g. comfortable seating) packaged in a nice sport coupe with decent power yet with fuel-economy in mind. In short, I want a 35 mpg sport coupe with some creature comfies inside that comes in at no more than 30K. I hope GM can get us there!
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 1:55 pm mtuzmen said:
Avant project is gr8 BUT the name “Avant” has been in use by Audi and Mercedes since some time now. An unsused name would do much better i presume… e.g. Advant(derived from advantage)/ good stuff is displayed when searched by Google!:)
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 8:39 pm ELUSSIVR said:
very cool looking.
one ding would break my heart tho
premium drivers do not smack their doors open and park where they will be safe.
better to design a nonpontiac designed color coordinated removable/replaceable protective 25 $ trim strip. for doors and bumpers.
fire whoever added the wood trim NOW.
forget chrome. remember brake dust – make a titanium finish the new brushed aluminum
promote a bulletproof awd system. ie audi subaru
think small torquey turbodiesels or design 9 second nitrous injections.
rethink removable hardtops with glass.
design a low profile pop up roof rack system
build the hyundai hcd 3 awd air ride accessorization -roof rack slide top.
build an awd turbo kia soul
to this comment On September 26, 2009 at 9:58 pm Stephen French said:
I think that Buick should continue to offer attractive cars that look nice but aren’t so “cutting edge” to require “getting used to” before being appreciated. Quality, reliability, and comfort are of paramount importance. Rather than fall back into the trap of bigger, heavier, and “higher performance” make the cars sufficiently light (without losing build quality) to allow smaller engines to provide sporting performance while getting better fuel mileage. Want to attract a younger crowd? Come out with new but relevant technologies especially those that provide better mileage and less pollution (think Buick Volt). Buick should be a higher quality more refined alternative to Chevy without being as showy or ostentatious as a Caddy. A small premium car that could serve as a nice (relaxing yet economical) commuter is a great direction to explore. Good luck – I’m hoping the Buick and GM come back strong.
to this comment On September 27, 2009 at 12:46 am Josh Krupa said:
I love the 10th and 12th pictures in the slideshow especially speak to me. They are truly unique and have lines that are clean and emotional but truly modern. They leave me in love and ready to order one. I Love the agressive yet clean hatch shape.
to this comment On September 27, 2009 at 3:37 am Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) | Car2Be.com - Hot News & Reviews said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 27, 2009 at 6:03 am Buick takes another look at the small premium market with Avant Concept (w/VIDEO) – Top Gear Blog said:
[...] feedback on. Check out the image gallery below and click past the break to watch the video. Then, click here to let GM know what you think of its ideas for the small premium market. Thanks for the tip, [...]
to this comment On September 28, 2009 at 12:13 am SFJOMAN said:
This is a step in the right direction, but it misses on some important areas. A BIG thumbs up for the hardtop/frameless doors and nice slim A pillars. This gives improved outward visibility and a clean upscale look, but, with a high beltline and high front cowl, this would be too clasutrophobic for a tight small car. You need to lower the hood/cowl so you can see the front corners of the car instead of sitting low and can’t see out. Look at Honda Prelude or Infinity G37 for lower hoods give a more command driving position without sitting like in an SUV. This may need RWD configuration to keep the hoodline lowered like a Corvette. Love the sunroof, but must be retactable not stationary, and make a large opening when open. Could do without the luggage thing and the lateral sliding seats – maybe some would like the options for it, but I want perfect sporty supportive seats that are simpler. Put the $’s and effort getting the chassis dynamics right with fully independant suspension and refined handling like BMW3 series. And needs a perfect engine and drivetrain, better than anything existing today if this is to succeed.
to this comment On September 28, 2009 at 7:21 pm PhilR said:
I agree with most of the above comment.
A premium car, small or not, should be made of high quality materials, should have the stiffest body without any rattles even when it’s getting very old (I don’t mean 5 years, I mean 20 years…). The plastics, seat fabrics, trim pieces should be made to withstand time and still look good.
I’m not a big fan of gadgets. I like durability and a car that can withstand abuse, a lot of abuse! I often go over sidewalks, drive on non paved roads and at high speeds. I don’t want a car that will break at the first pothole. A car with wipers that are almost inoperative after 3 winters (like those in a friend’s Chevy Uplander). I don’t want a car with A/C that will need servicing after only 10 or 15 years. I want my car’s a/c system to still blow cold when the car will be very old and will have 300,000 miles on it… That’s the difference between a premium car and a cheap car. And that’s what makes a car with a good resale value. A 10 years old car that still drives like a new one has a better resale value than a car that’s having rattles, idiot lights for the “check engine” “ABS” “airbags” and other things always on, seats that look like crap, sagging headliner, wheel bearing noise…
And again, a premium Buick MUST BE RWD! Say that to Fritz Henderson, Susan Docherty and all the gurus at GM that need to change their mind quickly!
Maybe the next Buick concept should be named the “Buick Arrière”.
to this comment On September 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm kevzter said:
I like it a lot! Especially the interior. A bit too “show car” IMHO but very good. It would be nice if an interior like that actually made into production but I find it unlikely. I think the armrests are pretty cool but at the very least, can you make the center armrest and the door armrest the same height? This is something that seemingly nobody gets right. Sometimes the simple things are the one’s that get missed.
The door is a great idea but overly complicated. I think the mechanism would end up adding far too much weight to the car which is something GM already has a problem with. Perhaps just make it sliding by default like a van door? The sunroof slats are a great idea and don’t look like they would be too difficult to implement. There are already home windows being produced with similar features (blinds between glass panes).
I don’t get the sliding seat. Why exactly? Again, seems too complicated and a solution looking for a problem. If the car is properly designed, this should not be necessary.
It’s going to take a while for people to wake up to Buick. It’s been such a wallflower type of car for so long that the beautiful cars from it’s heyday have been forgotten (except by octogenarians which is why they have the demographic they do). Changing that will be hard but I agree that you should concentrate on subtle luxury. Cadillac is turing out to be the outre brand. Buick should be more like a Brooks Brothers suit. You know it’s expensive by it’s cut and fit, not by it’s over the top fabrics.
I was in traffic behind and ES 350 the other day and it is not a very good looking car at all but there is a certain, as the French say “I don’t know what” about it that looks expensive. You know it’s just a Camry wearing an expensive frock yet it seems expensive. Quality is in the details, not the bling…
to this comment On September 29, 2009 at 10:35 am Wade Bryant said:
I think you’re on the same page with most of us (at GM and on the LAB).
to this comment On September 29, 2009 at 1:40 pm PhilR said:
I fully agree with the first 3 paragraphs of your comment. But Buick has more younger fans than you say, it’s just that their newer cars are so boring that only old and medicated people still buy them. I know many persons who are not very old and bought new Buicks back in the seventies when they were still not 30 years old! They don’t now because they feel the current cars are made for extremely old people! And I have a few friends who aren’t much older than I am but we all drive Buicks that are older than we are! And these old Buicks are definitely feeling younger than the current models (and that includes the new LaCrosse…).
And about the ES 350, I just hate it. It looks really bad, in and out. I’d rather drive a Camry! It looks better than the ES and people (myself included!) wouldn’t think I paid that much for that ugly FWD sedan. I don’t like much the styling of the IS but I’d still like to have one if I could afford it!. Maybe I could if I’d sell all my old Buicks but I won’t!
The “je ne sais quoi” you saw that made the ES look expensive might just have have been the Lexus badge!
to this comment On September 28, 2009 at 3:31 pm David DeLuca said:
I really like the coupe-like concept drawings. I don’t care for the “SUV”-style drawings. The interior designs resonate with me better than GM concepts in recent memory.
The louvered glass roof is a great idea. The first thing I thought of was the 2010 Mustang Glass-Roof option. I wonder how well that sells? The louvers let you bring in a little light without baking yourself, which is more flexibility than you get from a traditional sliding shade. I’d talk with Mustang owners who have this option before I made it a part of the design. Maybe even retro-fit some Mustangs with the louvers to see what it’s like in the real world.
The sliding doors are also pretty cool, and address a real-world problem of tight parking garages. Hopefully, the doors would *not* be electrically powered. I’ve been in tight Philly garages where the next car’s mirror would interfere with a “slide” such as this. If you could push the door manually, you could judge the clearance a lot better, and it would be cheaper and lighter to build, with less to go wrong.
The left-right sliding driver’s seat seems like an incredible idea. Most of the time, the passenger seat is empty, anyway. Sliding to the center would make the car feel a lot more spacious. But again, I’d recommend building some test-mules to see what drivers think of it. Since it’s a feature no one has any experience with, it’s very hard to judge whether it would be worth the money.
The luggage butler would be better utilized in a larger vehicle, where it’s harder to reach into the trunk. We’re not talking about a Crown Vic here. The idea is “small.” The luggage area isn’t going to be that big to begin with.
If any of these three features works out well, don’t confine them to a single car line…
Is there a way that you could design the roofline so that it’s sleek, but still easy to get in and out of the car? I’ve rented the Malibu and the Aura on recent trips, and found that I had to really “duck my head” uncomfortably, and I’m only 5′9. I think that’s due to the thick side framerail.
to this comment On October 4, 2009 at 1:32 am dfschim said:
“I really like the coupe-like concept drawings. I don’t care for the “SUV”-style drawings.”
I agree 100%. If a vehicle is over 56″ tall I don’t want it. It also should be a fastback, not have a Golf/station wagon/SUV looking rear window angle. But you can’t skimp on the headroom either. A small premium car should have 40″ of headroom in the front seat and at least 38″ in the rear seat. Start the hinge of the hatchback right behind the heads of the rear seat passengers. Look at the Volt with a fastback and flat squared off rear deck/spoiler and a little window under the rear deck/spoiler. Maybe even include a 82 Trans Am style spoiler on the deck if that will reduce drag. Don’t go with the radically rounded rear end like a 2nd generation Eclipse/Talon, 2nd generation Probe, FWD Cougar or the car in the video.
“The luggage butler would be better utilized in a larger vehicle, where it’s harder to reach into the trunk. We’re not talking about a Crown Vic here. The idea is “small.” The luggage area isn’t going to be that big to begin with.”
Yes and no. Yes the luggage butler is better for a big SUV. If you build a hatchback with a squared off tail and keep the hinge right behind the heads of the rear seat passengers then you can easily reach the luggage. This would be especially true if the glass on the rear hatch wraps around like the 3rd generation Firebird rather than being entirely in the rear like the Volt. If the rear glass wraps around to the sides then when the hatch opens up you have an opening like a short bed pickup with the tailgate down. If a hatch that big is too heavy then do make a tailgate that folds down. No, a small vehicle does not necessarily mean a small luggage area. Squared off hatchbacks tend to have large trunks. The Crown Vic trunk is 21 cubic feet, the Prius trunk is 22 cubic feet.
“Is there a way that you could design the roofline so that it’s sleek, but still easy to get in and out of the car? I’ve rented the Malibu and the Aura on recent trips, and found that I had to really “duck my head” uncomfortably, and I’m only 5′9. I think that’s due to the thick side framerail.”
At 6′2″ I share your pain. The solution is to have the door cut into the roof. I had a Dodge Shadow where the entire outer A pillar and the first couple of inches of roof above the door were attached to the door instead of the car unibody. That is about as good as you can get with a conventional door because if you take more of the roof it will block access when the door is open. A Lamborghini style door could include a section of roof as big as a T-top with no problem, but then you have to dodge the door body when getting in. Gull wing doors have none of those problems. They hinge at the top center where the T-top bar is. They are the door equivalent of a hatchback, providing wide open access to the seat like the hatchback provides wide open access to the trunk.
to this comment On September 28, 2009 at 5:27 pm getalifeagain said:
I do not like the styling of the Avant at all. I definitely would not buy one.
to this comment On September 29, 2009 at 10:39 am Wade Bryant said:
We haven’t settled on any design for this car. We have quite a few designs that we tried (several more that were not shown on the LAB).
Which design are you reacting to? Could there be a Small Premium Buick that you’d consider?
to this comment On September 29, 2009 at 5:50 pm getalifeagain said:
I had a Saturn SL (1999) and it was a great car for $15,000. It was 180 inches and had some weight making it relatively “safe.”
I am not a small car person. I believe larger sized cars (180 inches +) can obtain great gas mileage and also give some semblance of safety.
I do not like the styling of any of the Buick Avants, especially the silver one.
Finally I probably would not buy a small premium Buick considering what it is based on here and especially if it is over 20K.
Thank You.
to this comment On September 30, 2009 at 4:16 am getalifeagain said:
Addendum:
The design I was reacting to is the first one on Flickr. I do not like the 2+2 either. There are a couple with promise, but they do not have names.
to this comment On September 29, 2009 at 2:05 pm Mesama said:
I wonder if you could come up with a design language that achieves both style and visibility. A small car for me is about nimbleness and high visibility. It has to be light, responsive, and have a manual option. You want to have the feel that you can see the 4 corners of the car and zip in and around whatever you want.
I would love to find that in a Buick — something that is beautiful when you look closely but without the pretention and “loudness” of a Caddy.
to this comment On September 29, 2009 at 2:59 pm PhilR said:
I like the idea of a glassroof that can turn opaque or translucent! I have a tinted glass sunroof in my daily driver and I don’t like having sunlight directly over my head while I’m driving. I never open it either, I just turn on A/C (that’s why I don’t like convertibles!).
I’m wondering how well those blinds would resist to time and repeated usages and if they would cause rattles! And I’m wondering how safe is a glass roof like this one. I was in a big accident recently and I’m wondering what would have happened if I had such a big area of glass over my head! I had cuts on my nose and forhead from the windshield glass and my glasses were badly scratched. I think I might be blind now if I’d have worn my contact lenses instead of glasses that day!
to this comment On September 30, 2009 at 12:57 pm Rob_S said:
I really like the open concept interior. It looks great and is a much cleaner design compared to the normal console type interiors in production cars. If GM would put this interior in one of their Cruize/Malibu size cars, I would buy it. My current car is getting rather old and I don’t like the dual cockpit design which is so prevalent these days.
The exteriors did not really appeal to me but I do think that Buick has to produce something dramatic and noticeable. So, maybe they could work. The new Lacrosse may be a good car but it does not stand out enough to let the average person know that things are different at Buick.
to this comment On October 1, 2009 at 9:37 am Louise Boucher said:
Avant d’essayer de nous surprendre par l’innovation et l’”écoute”, vous pourriez commencer par me surprendre par votre traduction francaise pour votre publicité et celle des “commentaires”. Cette dernière est vraiment “pitoyable” et “quasi “indécente”.
A la prochaine, j’espère bien. Ma défunte Buick Celebrity a été pour moi, le plus grand plaisir de conduite au début des années 80. Merci …
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 12:55 pm PhilR said:
Louise, j’imagine que vous vouliez dire “Buick Century!”. Et la traduction française, c’est certainement une traduction automatique. Il vaut mieux lire les commentaires dans leur version originale, comme dans tous les blogs de ce genre! En passant, je suis surpris de voir quelques réponses en Français ici!
to this comment On October 3, 2009 at 9:06 pm Michael said:
On the louvered windows – are the panes covered on top by something smooth, like a pane of glass? If not, and they open into the airstream, they will significantly increase airflow separation over the top of the car, hurting efficiency. If they open in a way that passengers can touch, they pose a risk of snipping someone’s fingertip off, or at least making life very unpleasant when they close, if someone has stuck their finger in between them. (Kids do this sort of thing all the time.) If nothing obstructs them on the bottom, someone may get hurt in this way. If something does obstruct them on the bottom, there may not be airflow through the panes into the cabin.
I’d love to see some sort of active cooling and solar power supply mechanism incorporated into the roof of future cars, as they do on the Prius. That car uses solar cells to power a small motor that drives a fan that pushes hot air out of the car while you aren’t in it, so that you come back to a cooler car. That means that you don’t have to spend as much power on air conditioning when you get into the car, since the car is already close to the ambient temperature. That increases fuel efficiency.
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 9:02 am Wade Bryant said:
The original idea is to have the “micro pergola” vanes sandwiched between glass (top and bottom). It was intended to control light in an attractive way, but not to permit airflow into the vehicle.
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 1:27 am Christopher Popa said:
As a long-time Buick owner, I love the portholes on the silver Buick Avant in the video. At :30 in, the lines and curves look most right – but have you tried a full sweepspear for the side? Perhaps the young designers think the portholes and sweepspear are Buick design cues of “yesterday,” but, as shown on the beautiful new LaCrosse, they can still work for today and make someone like myself feel comfortable that it IS a Buick. The design which emulates the Mini is very nice – it looks so clean and modern. (I thought when the Mini Cooper first gained such popularity that their basic design with a 1954-type Buick grille would have given GM a neat little competitor to it.) If you need a name for the small premium Buick, how about Wildcat – that is a taut, frisky, and fun name. I don’t want to come off like I’m stuck in the past, it’s just that the really memorable Buick designs and models to me are from then. I don’t want a 1965 Buick, I want a 2015 Buick. I’m glad that you’re planning a smaller, premium Buick as that’s what I’m personally hoping for and what I think the market in general is heading to.
to this comment On October 6, 2009 at 12:18 am jsbella said:
Hi guys!!
First of all…Fantastic design!! I wonder, though — if all small cars have to be hatch-backs? I think, personally, hood/cabin/trunk looks more classy and “premium”.
Another thought I’d like to share is the morphing abilities your vehicle concept has. I love the ingenuity, and the passion, thought, and experience behind all those ideas. Just be careful you don’t go overboard, because those features will only make the vehicle more complex, costly, and heavy. …Just a thought.
Overall, I think it’s a job well done. Such a car (if it makes production) would sell fantastically in China, I think. Just don’t forget about is Americans, please. The US market needs a beacon to shine a new light on Buick. I’d hate for it to waste away.
Thanks again for sharing all this with us. You’re taking a great risk by revealing it to the public (and the competition), but I appreciate it!
to this comment On October 6, 2009 at 12:27 am Dan said:
Putting my marketing hat on, I’d be thinking more in terms of the type of customer that seeks out Banana Republic rather than Armani. Simply put, someone who has style and success, though through a quiet confidence that people can instantly sense. Both Buick and Cadillac are American luxury, but two different takes on a theme. If I had to pair celebrities to both (I hate celebrities, but this will aid in illustrating my point of the customer types), I’d say Buick is more of a cool classic like Dean Martin and Cadillac is more raunchy James Dean.
to this comment On October 6, 2009 at 9:40 am Kev01 said:
The car looks strong but a little bit too heavy. More over, the design language is a too close to Infinity and I miss the american background but I would like to see more of this project…can’t wait!
PS: very exciting blog
Kevin
to this comment On October 12, 2009 at 4:56 am Andrew Charles said:
Why does everyone keep mentioning a sweep-spear, when it’s obvious that’s not what they’re talking about? Lots of cars had a dip in the beltline like 50s Buicks, including every other contemporary GM sedan. The curve in the side of the LaCrosse is most like the 1950 Roadmaster, which did not have a sweep-spear. The sweep-spear appeared first on the 1950 LeSabre concept, and is the chrome strip running along the side. Originally it swept down ahead of the rear wheel and returned along the rocker panel. On later Buicks it kinked back up and over the rear wheel. It almost never followed the form of the rear fender panel or beltline. Hopefully we will never see a sweepspear ever again, but the dipped beltline, molded fenders and even two-tone paint jobs (Lancia does them well) could be cool if done right.
to this comment On October 14, 2009 at 9:39 pm PhilR said:
The sweep spear was first seen on the ‘49 Roadmaster Riviera and some convertibles later in the model year, not on the 1951 LeSabre.
As you said the shape on the newer Buicks is more like the dip in the beltline of mid-fifties and mid-sixties Buicks (mostly 1955-58 and 1965-68 models). Other GM divisions had similar beltlines but it they weren’t as nice as those on Buicks.
The last Buick with a sweep spear was the 1972-73 Riviera. Other models had optional sweep spear chrome trim on their sides like the 1967-70 LeSabre/Wildcat/Electra,1968-69 Skylarks and 1970 Riviera.
to this comment On October 12, 2009 at 11:29 am Billtrez said:
I’m curious to know how the market research has led to the design ideas for a car that I would recommend for my parents.
The trunk porter helps relieve aching backs.
The sliding door helps relieve parking anxiety when the skills diminish.
The fixed sunroof now becomes a worthy option for individuals that believe sunroofs always leak.
These are picture perfect ideas for the grey class of world class.
Wisecracks aside, I am heartened to see that there is a design in the works that is not a rebadged Cruze. Here is an opportunity to create something really special in the marketplace. If you can get this right then I know that General Motors is truly dead, long live the new General Motors.
Here are a few lessons of the past.
The Corvair Monza was a great car for an emerging market that was killed by narrow minded flaw exposure.
The Cosworth Vega was too little too late.
The Cimaron failure needs no explanation.
The Citation had serious issues with build quality that could not be overcome no matter how good the final car had been.
Any GM car with a bad head gasket (and there are a lot of them) now has a former owner that drives a Hyundai simply because the Hyundai dealer backs it up with a warrantee (no matter how crappy the car).
These cars reflect four areas of product life that need to be perfect; design execution, market timing, build quality and repair service (especially after the warrantee expires).
Here are, what I believe, the positives of the Buick DNA.
The Fireball V-6. Its best application is in the GNX. Pure Buick.
The Riviera. Maybe the Chinese know something we forgot. Personal luxury couldn’t be better defined within GM than the classic style of the Riviera, even before it became its own model.
Tiger Woods. There isn’t a harder working, purely talented, world class champion out there. Even though he longer hawks Buicks, his accomplichments can be a major influence of what a Buick represents.
So here are my personal preferences for driving small:
First and foremost please give it Nurburgring performance. I don’t want to feel any anxiety when I pull up next to a BMW M3.
Second. Enclave silence. I would love to hear nothing when I hit a pothole in the middle of an onramp, feel it but continue unsettled.
Third. Function can leave no apologies. I do not want to put any of my gear in the front or back seats. The trunk is the right place for my clubs, racquetball gear, beach chair, cooler, etc…A friend of mine bought a Hyundai for his kid after his gym bag couldn’t fit through the trunk opening of a Cobalt. The Camaro seems no better.
Forth. Three pedals. Although I enjoy paddle shifting a Corvette and keeping both hands on the wheel, nothing makes a car feel light like a wonderful manual, hot knife through butter, transmission.
If Buick can screw this thing together in a plant that spits out cars with the fewest defects per hundred built, then I will take Lexus off of my recommended list.
Did GM fire the guy that pushed the Saabaru? I want him (or her) on the Buick team. What would a boy racer do with a clean slate at Buick?
to this comment On October 14, 2009 at 9:42 pm PhilR said:
3 pedals and a shifter mounted on top of the transmission should be available!
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 12:29 am bobaskey@aol.com said:
I like the Buick Avant forward-sliding doors. My Chrysler minivan motor-driven sliders load boxes or Boy Scouts, groceries or Girl Scouts, into both sides of the vehicle in tight parking spaces. Elegant old Mercedes gull-wing doors looked beautiful but were hugely impractical. Sliding doors are really more basically practical than hinged doors.
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 12:31 am bobaskey@aol.com said:
Please disregard the Neanderthals who want to regress to manual shifting. Today’s automatic shifters are more accurate than the ancient clutch systems of our bygone high-school days.
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 12:54 pm Billtrez said:
The state of the electronics of an automatic clutch and shifter render a manual clutch obsolete. I manage an automatic clutch and manul shifting with greater precision than I can manually engage the right gearset given the situation a road course may demand. However, I choose to drive a manual clutch purely for the visceral pleasure of controlling my car. Have you ever driven a car into a corner, simultaneously late braking, increasing the revs, choosing the correct gear, letting out the clutch and powering out at the peak of torque and then allowing the horses to kick in? I drive a manual transmission by choice. I understand my cars limitations and want to control them. And it’s fun. Very few “high school” drivers are educated in vehicle dynamics and operations. Very few drivers, in total, understand an automobiles’ limitations. There are negative consequences to poor vehicle mangement regardless of drivetrain.
So, a manual transmission in a car may indeed be neanderthal, but retro is not the point of offering one in a Buick. I would like to see a manual transmission to complete the symmetry of controlling a wonderfully designed automobile.
I am questioning the motivation to create a small Buick that will be successful in the marketplace of premium small cars. Buicks have a reputation of being driven by more octegenarians than post adolescents. The video here demonstrates a design theme that creates a more convenient vehicle rather than a more competent vehicle.
The designers of this Buick appear to be motivated to create a small vehicle that GM can make a good profit with by exploring unique ideas of convenience. This attitude definately does not have room for a, god forbid, manual transmission.
The ranks of premium small cars are populated by Mini Cooper, Audi A3, BMW 125i, Volvo C30, and Lexus IS 250. All of these cars come standard with a 6 speed manual transmission.
They are fun.
The Buick designs displayed here are created from an attitude that will produce a nice new car that will be the same old Buick.
to this comment On October 14, 2009 at 9:44 pm PhilR said:
When I was in high school, I was driving automatics! A real manual transmission should be available for those who want one. I’m among them!
to this comment On October 14, 2009 at 9:49 pm PhilR said:
I think this is one of the coolest Buicks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMFeLvlzBwc
to this comment On October 20, 2009 at 8:36 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the video.
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 3:06 am SteveR said:
What would be helpful is to have a sense of who the target audience is for this vehicle. Because you could take this concept in several different directions. But some thoughts:
1. Scrap the sliding console/seat idea. Too many quality issues. Premium should equal the rock solid feel you get from a MB or BMW. I agree with the earlier post that focusing on making the interior wide and using shapes to enhance the feeling of space makes more sense.
2. Focus on the materials – I like the use of what appears to be teak wood in the one rendering. I’ve liked the use of this wood in the Volvo’s I’ve seen. The key should be natural – leather, wood, metal, wool carpet. Make it very classy. All high grade materials. I was impressed with the seats in the Lancia Delta, particularly the rear seat.
3. Flexibility is key. This benefits both younger city dwellers and older people. I’ve been impressed with the space utilization of vehicles like the Mercedes B-Class (but not the styling), or, more on point, the Citroen C3 Picasso.
4. High end audio (not Bose, more Levinson or Dynaudio).
5. Full iTune/iPhone/Android compatibility thru sound system
6. Rear monitors with video/audio in, or rear seat trays, heated rear seats, rear seats recline and have fore/aft adjustments
7. Potential dash mounted dock for Apple Tablet (also compatible with sound system)
to this comment On October 17, 2009 at 11:27 pm Billtrez said:
More than any other Buick, this car will be the personal choice of the buyer without the need to consider any passenger opinion. The Buick of commuter cars. So why not completely cater to the driver?
The driving environment can be taken to another level above the competition from head to toe.
Start with the toes.
Three pedals spaced for proper heal and toe (if you drive an automatic then it’s your loss). Maybe add a high volumn blast of air to dry the feet?
Thigh support.
Cushions that can reach almost to the knees. Rather than have your legs be in a constant state of hanging in the air, the cushions can relieve the legs from the work that only the foot needs to do to manage acceleration, braking, and if need be, shifting.
The hips and butt.
automatically adjusting side hip bolsters with cushion depth that can relieve fatigue on long drives or stop and go traffic.
Even arm rests.
Position the door arm rest so that the right arm is symetrical to the left arm.
The stearing position.
I know that it is old hat to create an adjustable stearing wheel, but what about distances to items that the driver needs that have nothing to do with steering? Can you create nav, radio, environmental, coffee, and cell controls that can be reached without having your shoulders leave the seat back? This means bringing the control pod a lot closer to the driver than any other car does.
The head.
Headrest speakers. These serve a dual purpose for bluetooth calls. Normal bluetooth calls come in through all of the car speakers. The passengers, and sometimes the pedestrians, can hear your conversation. Callers hate it when everyone can hear what they say. The headrest can be a part of a privacy setting on the bluetooth that routes the incoming voice only to the headrest speakers so that no one else needs to hear the person on the other end. If it’s properly adjusted perhaps the audio in the rest of the car can ramain on.
5.1 surround sound. It is awesome on audio DVDs.
Corvette heads up display. Just tone it down a little.
Driver non-essential lighting blackout. Saabs have it. Why drive with a light show all of the time?
My guess is that this will be a two or three box front driver. (The solstace is gone.) I know that GM has done wonderful work with handeling torque steer on the SS versions of the HHR and Cobalt, so I believe that vehicle dynamics will be outstanding.
Just don’t repeat the mistakes of the G6 and turn it into a chick car. This needs to fit 6 footers like a glove.
The 3 box design by Robert Melville is my personal preference. Good Job and good luck.
to this comment On October 19, 2009 at 1:58 pm ddouaire said:
The car does have sex appeal though not necessarily distinctive and the roof and sliding door system are great but it’s not like we haven’t seen similar elements in concepts prior to this.
Design alone will help sell a lot of cars initially but after that the initial buzz disappears, the second wave of customers is only going to be interested if the engine/drive-train, chassis, suspension and interior finich and overall assembly quality all contribute to deliver the kind of driving experience that the equivalent German designed car delivers.
In the GM stable, I do not see the kind of equipments that can rival those developped by European car manufacturers.
to this comment On October 22, 2009 at 12:45 am EMeyers said:
Please, please, please, focus on the basics. A stiff but light chassis (target weight of no more than 2,800 lbs), a powerful but efficient engine (- how about the excellent 2.0 DI turbo 4 with ethanol injection for short duration “overboost”) a 7 spd DSG transmission, and the Delphi mag-adjustable shocks. Please do not get caught up wasting precious development money on gimmickry like the porter/luggage thingamajig – especially on a small car that won’t be large enough to carry anything of any substance anyway. That is an absolute waste of resources given the current economic climate. Do you remember the Envoy XUV and its complex, heavy and unloved transforming cargo area??? Don’t repeat that mistake. If you are insisting on maximum utility (which I frankly don’t see in this segment), how about a two piece hatch, with a bottom half which opens down like a tailgate and a top portion which opens like a conventional hatchback separate from the bottom portion. See the ‘10 BMW 5 Series GT. Then you can offer a simple sliding, lightweight (non-motorized) mechanism to allow cargo to be pulled out. I’ve seen this before (was it on the 9-3X SportCombi?? – can’t recall). Anyway, simple and elegant beats techno-overload every time. Relying upon gimmicks to sell vehicles is the wrong path and sends the wrong message. Concentrate on the fundamentals. Quality, Performance, Safety and Durability. If you want to add something to draw attention, LED lighting would be more effective and much less expensive since the technology could be amortized over other GM vehicles. Thanks for allowing me to vent. I sincerely want GM to thrive as it did when I was a kid.
to this comment On October 30, 2009 at 9:42 am Seth Nickerson said:
I think it is a sharp and appropiately sized auto, I think the grille is too high and gives the design a bulbus nose, reminisent of the avanit of old. but mostly I can’t believe the legnths you went through to create the micro-shades to tame the panoramic roof. This is almost funny and the linkage is doomed. they have a new technology called SPD (suspended particle device) polycarbonate or glass that changes from virtually clear to 95% dark and back or anywhere inbetween in 1.5 seconds. It turns a deep blue like limo tint and is tested over 1 mil cycles.
I will take the liberty of giving the web address to a short youtube video you should watch and then wonder how you missed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb8IsDfG3uM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcTHybek7Rc&feature=fvsr
to this comment On October 31, 2009 at 8:00 am Unni said:
No new lab reports ? Spirit of new GM over ? or performance appraisal over ?
to this comment On November 6, 2009 at 11:20 am Wade Bryant said:
Mostly we’re just extremely busy. Spirit of “new GM” is intact and is exciting. This site has invigorated the projects we’ve revealed and now we have to scramble to see how this ideas can fit into our future. I’m a bit frustrated that our “truck configurator” (a way to gather your preferences on Bare Necessity Truck) hasn’t launched yet.
Thanks for the prodding.
to this comment On November 9, 2009 at 5:06 pm Unni said:
Great !!.
Was going through some of the SEMA stuff blogs and was looking on WAVE II, eVARO plug-in,Aptera etc. I wonder its a nice idea to have a Transformer effect on a new concept car.
The idea is similar to Sport,economic etc mode settings. The difference with the idea i am saying is the car can change a bit of its shape when we choose a mode ( example : High way : you can change the shape of the car more for more aero look + covering the wheels, Moving the wheels a bit inside to get more aero effects and covering then with a shutter , Moving the Boot a bit up to get the aero characteristics better . etc.
Basically the idea is transforming the shape of the car in allowable way to get max advantage for that usage scenario.
to this comment On November 8, 2009 at 4:44 pm lmalchodi said:
Just a thought, I remember when GM cars had the most comfortable seats. Now, not so much. I spend a great deal of time in my car and I want a comfortable seat. The seat shouldn’t just look prett it should feel good.
to this comment On November 12, 2009 at 11:01 am SanGio said:
Quite nice. Kudos.
While I admire the intention to reinvent the Buick brand for a younger audience, I’m frankly quite skeptical. For example, I’m personally very excited about the new Insignia, and would even consider replacing my previous-generation A4, but I don’t believe I could ever bring myself to buy anything with a Buick badge (…even if it is really an Opel). Too many years of brand baggage for me… and everyone else I know, to whom I would show my new car.
Were I a GM brand manager, I might consider keeping the Buick badge in China (where it sticks), and rebranding Buick to Vauxhall or Opel in the US, where Buick has negative brand equity, IMHO.
In the case of Cadillac, re-launching the brand was the right strategy – there was enough positive historical brand value to create a foundation for a redux. I personally don’t believe that’s true with Buick.
My $.02 as a potential buyer.
to this comment On November 17, 2009 at 1:51 am PhilR said:
Vauxhall did sell cars here and they were known as junk… Buick sold Opels here and they were economy cars.
Cadillac has never had sporty performance cars in it’s history. GM created a new image for it to help people forget the FWD low performance monsters that were previously made by this brand. Apparently, it worked well enough for people like you to appreciate this brand.
Buick on the other hand, already has a great history of powerful, luxurious and sporty cars but GM seens to want to change that into low performance, boring cars…
Buick is the best name at GM and GM has to give it back it’s past glory and make it it’s best division again! And with good cars that have character, nice styling, outstanding performance, quality and durability, maybe GM will be able to bring this name back where it should be and make people proud again to own a Buick! Until then, I’ll continue to drive my pre-eighties RWD Buicks!
to this comment On November 15, 2009 at 12:28 am 85cieraholiday said:
The concept here looks great, but I see a major issue….reliability. That stupid luggage thing/etc look like nothing more then stuff to go wrong. If you want to build a better product make sure that 1. It must look, feel, and perform like a Buick, meaning it must have classic good looks, quiet ride, and be built better then 99% of people will ever need. 2. It must attract younger buyers, these are people who consider Buick’s competitors like Acura, Volvo, Saab, Mercury, and Chrysler. Don’t build a product that competes with Ford, Chevrolet, Honda, Dodge, etc because you will just cheapen the brand. Think Volvo S40 or Acura RSX not Ford Focus or Nissan Sentra. 3. It must look like a Buick from 100 feet away. Portholes, sweeping lines, chrome, all tastefully done to ensure it is never mistaken for a competitor.
Don’t forget turbo engines and manual transmissions because they are what younger buyers want, not a heavy V6 with a 4 speed automatic. Standard features should be Buick like: leather seats, alloy wheels, keyless entry. Build the car to a standard not to a price point and the people will come.
to this comment On November 17, 2009 at 12:26 am dfschim said:
You are right that younger buyers want turbo engines. But most younger buyers do not want the portholes, sweepspears and chrome that attract buyers who were around in the 50’s. The Buick Skyhawks didn’t have any of those and were recognizable as Buicks. Most younger buyers also trust that computers can shift better than a human being, they want six speed dual clutch automatic transmissions like the Mitsubishi Evo, Nissan GTR Porsche PDK, Ferrari, etc.
to this comment On November 18, 2009 at 5:46 pm Pete Basica said:
I have three children and a wife. Most of the more efficient vehicles do not seem to be family friendly. When we travel my vehicle must to accommodate not only five people, but the luggage for four females. My three daughters also want me to be ecologically responsible. We want the impossible from you. We want you to take this concept and make it large enough to accommodate our lifestyle.
to this comment On November 21, 2009 at 11:28 am chad campbell said:
As far as the styling goes on both the compact concepts and the 2+2 car I like the more curvy body styles. The first photo in the flicker set of small premium buicks is too blocky. Looks like it could be a nissian. If buick is to build a compact luxury car it should stay away from this design.
The 2+2 is very attractive too bad GM didn’t make this type of car for Pontiac a few years ago. I think it could be a great gran-turismo. All in all every brand out there will have to build smaller cars to meet the goverments CAFE standards. The challenge is to convince buyers that there is value in paying 25,000 or possibly more for a compact car. The other part of that problem is getting Americans to believe that a compact car can fill thier needs. I’m single and have no kids. I go camping with my girlfriend a few times a year, and we like to go on weekend getaways. I currently have a small car and can barely fit the camping gear in it. I will be looking for something larger before I go on one more camping trip with my current car.
I see this cars main audience as being city dwellers, people who don’t have kids or those who want a seconed car for commutting. This will be a tough area to compete in because these types of customers tend to lean towards cheaper ,often used vehicles. With the exception of those well off enough to spend more to get a premium product.
I think the concept Buick has shown has a good chance of success, vehicles in this segment must have personality and make the driver feel special. I like that the drivers seat moves to the center of the vehicle. Good luck with the execution, its a very tough segment to compete in , ie …the Mini Cooper, but I’m pulling for GM
to this comment On November 21, 2009 at 1:03 pm Edwin said:
Buick should answer the Lexus IS. What’s taking so long.
to this comment On November 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm PhilR said:
I agree with you. Buick should already have a compact car that competes with the Lexus IS. That means, RWD with available AWD and an available high performance model…
A few years ago, I have seen an article comparing an older Buick GS 400 with a Lexus GS 400… I’d also like if Buick could build a new GS 455 so it could compare with the Lexus GS 450 or even with the 1970 Buick GS 455!
Then I’d rather have a new Buick too!
There’s still some hope. But for now, the only good news I heard is about the 6 speed manual tranny that will eventually be available in a Buick. Buick announced that it will launch for the model year 2011 a Buick/Opel Insigna (I mean Regal) with an available 6 speed manual transmission. This car will probably compete with the Corolla!
With the new LaCrosse that targets the Camry/ES, Buick is already aiming at Toyota’s less prestigious products. All it needs now is to climb a few stairs to the RWD world, where the Buick name belongs.
to this comment On November 25, 2009 at 2:56 am dfschim said:
That is just what a small premium Buick should not be, a 3500 lb RWD subcompact throwback to the 1970’s. The Lexus IS is tall and long, but has lousy headroom (only 37″) and trunk room (only 13 cu ft) due to its obsolete RWD platform. A small premium Buick should be a 2700-2900 lb FWD compact with 40″ of headroom and 20 cu ft of trunk room. There should be a Cadillac to go after the BMW 3, Mercedes C Class and Lexus IS, but you can’t call a 3500 lb car small.
to this comment On November 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm Phil Racicot said:
A Lexus IS IS small… And if RWD is obsolete, then why BMW, Mercedes C Class, and Lexus IS are RWD? I don’t mind having reduced headroom, trunk room or more weight. My 1967 Buick Riviera GS isn’t exactly a small car and doesn’t even have a 13 cu ft of usable trunk space and that’s not a problem for me. When I need more space, I just use my pick up trucks…
In fact, if I had to choose between two cars of the same size but with different weight, I’d probably take the one with more weight! My ‘67 Riviera is a bit smaller outside and much smaller inside than a ‘67 Chevrolet Biscayne but it’s still much heavier and more “premium” too…
to this comment On December 4, 2009 at 9:41 pm seano said:
The Action Avant is a very interesting vehicle, though maybe a little too much with some of the gimmicks. The innovative features I liked were the move over feature and the smart door, though I’m not sure if the move over is needed if it takes up too much development money and adds too much curb weight. I believe the place to start is with slick, smooth, fresh, styling that is not overwrought. I loved the C-pillar ‘backwards v’ that enables hatchback utility with limited hatchback look to the styling. I have long envied what friends with hatchbacks can get into their small cars but I have never even come close to buying one because I hate the traditional hatchback look. The buying public must agree, as many manufacturers are using other terms to describe theirs.
Whatever styling route GM chooses to go with, hopefully they remember the hey element of this car should be a roomy interior and a small exterior with careful consideration given to curb weight. And a cool roofline should not mean there is no headroom in the back seat for adults. When GM wants to do fastback styling on the roofline it seems the first thing they do is chop off too much rear seat headroom, while competitors use a slightly less radical line and make the back seat habitable for adults (or adult-size teens). And please don’t forget to include a good combination of power and fuel economy, like the 2.0L Turbo. This is a great first step taht will hopefully go somewhere and be the winner GM needs in the category.
to this comment On December 7, 2009 at 3:04 pm Tedd Harkulich said:
This car will never be built. Several years back Buick showed a “LaCross” at the Detroit Auto Show. Excellent looking car that would of been a hit for Buick. The car had “Voice” control for many things. The only thing that became of it was the name tag put on the Regal (formerly a Century). The “Real” LaCross would have done for Buick what the more recent Enclave did only years earlier. Buick’s BIG problem was that it was “Labeled” as an old man’s car and they (GM) believed it. What they failed to do was ask an old man what kind of car he liked.
I am a Buick man and I bought Buicks no matter what it looked like or how bad it was.
GM gave up “cars” (and their world leadership) when they went Gung Ho on trucks.
to this comment On December 8, 2009 at 1:35 pm jm7800 said:
Tedd, I see your point about labelling, but to a certain point, it does have its function within a company. You have to market products to someone. But there isn’t a reason why Buick could not market a small premium car. It takes the right message to the public as well as a healthy dose of *value* (I am seeing that term more and more here). Cadillac is repeatedly the perfect example of connecting with the public.
to this comment On December 8, 2009 at 12:45 pm jack brmyr said:
I am a long time GM driver. Currently own 4. Recently, my wife bought a Toyota Venza. We looked at the new Equinox but thought (she thought) interior looked cheap and plasticky (sp?) and after seeing the Venza, I had to agree with her.
How does GM plan to compete if equivalent priced cars have much higer levels of interior? We would have to pay extra for the Buick to get the same quality Toyota offered? Thus, on one of the most important levels, GM would seem to not be cost competetive. You should be underpricing Toyota, not overpricing them.
to this comment On December 18, 2009 at 11:36 am Chief said:
I WAS a long time GM driver. I now own a 10 yr old Lexus RX (Still driving and loving it) and a Scion tC (in 05 GM didn’t have anything close to competing in quality/value). Owned a Cadillac DeVille prior to the RX and Cadillac virtuallty chased me over to Lexus (long story) and I’ve never looked back. More to the topic – I’m not sure I would cross-shop the two vehicles you mention. The real problem is that GM doesn’t offer anything to directly compete with the Venza. The new CTS wagon would now compare in concept but is more expensive. If this is indeed a viable class of vehicle (Honda also seems to think so), GM is once again behind the curve. Sorry to say that now that you own a Toyota, chances are , you r next visit to a GM showroom will be very difficult to justify.
I think GM has the best looking new vehicles on the road but, as you point out (interior) they can’t seem to put the whole package together. Every model seems to have a deal-killing shortcoming – interior, fuel economy, price, etc.
I don’t anticipate being in the market for a new vehicle for at least 3 years. Given that time frame, I anticipate that I will end up with some sort of alternative fuel vehicle or hybrid. My perception, be it right or wrong, at this point is that GM is behind in this area and I wonderr if they will be in contention for my next purchase.
to this comment On January 4, 2010 at 10:38 am Wade Bryant said:
I know this is a bit off-topic to Buick small premium but I’d like to understand the “plasticky interior” concerns a bit more. Many of our recent products have placed considerable effort on the interiors and use some of the highest-quality materials in the class. Most of the reviews have been exceedingly positive and I thought the Equinox interior was class-leading from a design perspective. We used to be criticized for shiny plastic surfaces that looked “plasticky” but we have far better low-gloss materials in all our products now. Could you be specific on the turn-off points? What gave the plasticky impression (color, texture, gloss level, shapes, scent)? I think the Venza interior is a bit uninspired especially considering it’s higher price tag. What was so appealing to you and your wife?
to this comment On January 5, 2010 at 10:08 am Wade Bryant said:
Someone sent me this mostly glowing review of the Chevy Equinox that did mention some of the less-perfect plastic bits.- http://autos.aol.com/article/2010-chevrolet-equinox-drive
to this comment On December 18, 2009 at 11:36 am Jason Card said:
Even if you throw out all the unique features of the Avant concept and only maintain the beautiful body shape/design and the fact that it is a 2 X 2 seater coupe, so long as you use premium interior materials and equip it with at least a 200 HP engine that can do a 0-60 time in the low 7 second range, I think you will have captured the interest (and dollars) of young upscale professionals like me who would like to buy North American, but can’t find anything described as “sporty and luxurious” that can compete with European (read: German i.e. BMW/Audi/VW) vehilcles.
Audi missed the boat by not making its A1 available in North America. Buick could punish them for that mistake by making this car.
to this comment On December 30, 2009 at 2:32 amAndrew Scott Kinomoto said:
Very thoughtful design. I think for any small vehicle (premium or mainstream) personalization will be key. Drivers today want the option to make their vehicle stand apart and be a personal statement of style and preference. The Mini Cooper is a prime example – every single model is unique from a myriad of options. The Avant is a great concept and looks to be going the right direction.
to this comment On December 30, 2009 at 9:03 pm mross25 said:
I would like to see buick continue to focus on regaining its reputation as a premium car maker before venturing into small cars. The Lacrosse is a good looking car, and so is the new Regal. Buick needs a flag ship large size car that can compete with the Hyundai Genisis and other RWD flagship V8 vehicles. Buick could use a beautiful coupe and some additional crossovers. I think if Buick can be a brand that competes with Lexus eventually, but needs more cars and suv’s. Contrary to what some believe I feel Cadillac and Buick and co-exist together. Cadillac is flashy vs. Buick is understated elegance and luxury. If Hyundai can sell a $40,000 dollar RWD V8 Genisis, why can’t Buick sell a $40,000 RWD V8 automobile? When I was a child my parents owned Buicks and I remember the feeling of pride I had getting out of beautiful Park Avenues and Electra’s. Particuarly the 1983 Buick Park Avenue Electra comes to mind. The attention to detail on the interior was amazing. The leather padded dash, bright work chrome, wood grain and layout were elegant and the exterior of the car had presence. The Lacrosse and Enclave reminds me of the Buicks I grew up with. Please make a full size Buick that gives the Lexus LS a run for its money.
to this comment On January 4, 2010 at 10:44 am Wade Bryant said:
You make some excellent points and believe me we are having this exact discussion “in-house”. Buick needs to re-establish itself in many vehicle segments and in both the US and China. I think a flagship car would be appropriate in addition to a small premium entry. Lexus doesn’t sell too many LSs but it does a lot for their reputation.
to this comment On January 4, 2010 at 3:07 pm Chief said:
With the demise of many GM brands, I am hoping that we’ve seen the last of cloning and rebadging. While I’m fully aware of the global platform concept, etc., my number one suggestion for any new vehicle would be to make certain that we do not see the same vehicle sold as 4 different brands.
Furthermore, one of my pet-peeves is the insistance of manufacturers to make 4 different sizes of the same vehicle – identical front ends, generic styling, etc. I see nothing wrong with a new Buick that looks nothing like others in the line-up. If it is a worthy offering, there should be no problem with the car being recognized as a Buick without looking just like all the others on the road. Scion proved that with 3 models with nothing more than a logo in common yet, everyone knew them as Scions. Besides, I would rather have my vehicle noticed via ” Wow, what kind of car is that?” versus ” Oh, I see you bought the small Buick”
to this comment On January 7, 2010 at 5:36 pm tokao said:
Very good design indeed.
to this comment On January 8, 2010 at 12:40 am TerryB. said:
While you’re out there reinventing the Buick wheel, have you taken a look at what the custom shops are doing to bring back the look and feel of the old Buicks with a modern touch. Wonder what Mr. Earl would think…
http://www.californiacruisers.com/hhr_1953_woody.htm
I’m not too fond of the ‘Woody’ look. But everything else, from the waterfall grill and side chrome to the simple bumper overlays and bullseye hood ornament just says Classic Buick.
to this comment On February 27, 2010 at 5:37 pm Ktulu said:
I like it… I can’t find fault with it… I think it would be a great product for Buick.