Friends of Buick: FAQs

Q. Who maintains this website, and what do you hope to accomplish?

A. FriendsOfBuick.com is the work of Friends of Buick, a Michigan-based organization that values the traditions of ergonomics; grace; power, and reassurance of one of America's longest-serving automotive brands.

Studying Buick history since 1903, one observes four consistent attributes: ergonomics; grace; power, and reassurance.

We feel it important to market Buick referencing these four attributes.

All four deal with the product; all four consider the experience of actually owning an automobile, and none interfere with Buick's Beyond Precision slogan - rather, they reinforce it, in noting that Buick exhaustively considers the permanence of its vehicles in their aesthetic; packaging; roadability, and testing/ manufacturing processes.

These four attributes are also applicable to Buick through the ages, lending them authenticity. Heritage cannot be bought or duplicated - and heritage, Buick most certainly enjoys.

Moreover, since every product is a compromise of sorts, we think it important to qualify the four aspects that make a prospective vehicle a Buick - not solely for marketing, but extending to product development.

We would add, too, that grace and power are emotional; ergonomics and reassurance are stately. Thus does Buick possess a similar dichotomy to that of Mercedes-Benz (Mercedes being the emotional side; Benz, the rational). Dichotomies, when properly explored, are interesting - as are both heritage, and that peculiar brand of stoic attitude that both Buick and Mercedes-Benz have undeniably espoused, to varying degrees, over the years.

Almost a decade after Buick became the first automaker to launch a car on the Internet (the 1997½ Regal, blowing out two servers in Plano, Texas!), FriendsOfBuick.com presents a cyber-based; evolving, and holistic look at what the Buick brand has stood for over the past one hundred and three years.

FriendsOfBuick.com is an effort to articulate, as best we collectively can, the virtues of the modern Buick.

Yet it is not solely about Buicks, as models; rather, we seek to define Buick's esprit de corps, in exploring Buick as a brand. It is our fervent hope that the information presented is interesting; perhaps, even fresh.

During World War I, GM received a gracious note of thanks from Winston Churchill, then minister of munitions. Churchill was largely grateful to GM for Buick’s superlative wartime production effort. General Motors founder William C. Durant sent his good wishes and sincere thanks in return, on the behalf of – as he put it – "everyone without exception interested in the development; progress; ideals, and standards of this organization."

FriendsOfBuick.com today presents itself as the work of an independent organization which shares an interest in the development; progress; ideals, and standards of Buick.

FriendsOfBuick.com references several bodies of work on the Buick brand.

First and foremost, Terry B. Dunham and Lawrence R. Gustin's excellent The Buick: A Complete History (Dunham & Gustin, Automobile Quarterly, 2002) has been invaluable. Now in its sixth edition, it is among the finest historical tomes ever published (of any automaker).

A recent book on Buick is Don Bent's A Place Called Buick (Don Bent, 2005), which faithfully follows the history of what used to be called Flint's Oak Park Plant, and what was more recently referred to as Buick City, while almost always being known as The Buick. Lawrence R. Gustin, perhaps the nation's foremost Buick historian, has written of Bent's work, "this book is a keeper - a document that deserves to first be read, and then read again. It needs to be cherished and protected like a family photo album. And then it needs to be handed down to children and grandchildren so these future generations will know that members of their family were part of the heritage of GM's first home plant - a powerful, awesome complex that once defined a city; a marque; a corporation."

The most comprehensive catalog of individual Buick models from 1903 through 2000 is certainly Krause Publication's Standard Catalog of Buick: 1903-2000, as edited by Ron Kowalke (Krause, 1999).

FriendsOfBuick.com would also like to thank industry research and analysis site AutomoBear.com for the permission to freely re-use the organization's material.

FriendsOfBuick.com is neither affiliated with, nor endorsed by, General Motors Corporation. GM; the GM Logo; Buick; the Buick logo; OnStar; the OnStar emblem; QuietTuning, and the slogans; emblems; vehicle model names; vehicle body designs, and various other marks appearing on this domain are the trademarks and/ or service marks of GM; its subsidiaries; affiliates, or licensors. The XM name and related logos are registered trademarks of XM Satellite Radio, Inc.

Q. Is this website complete?

A. Absolutely not! FriendsOfBuick.com is an evolving body of work. We hope you'll stay tuned as we explore the brand; its triumphs, and its challenges.

Q. Why do you spend so much time on Buick heritage to explain Buick's present?

A. In Buick's long and storied history, four key aspects of what makes a car a Buick - and a Buick, worthwhile - emerge: ergonomics; grace; power, and reassurance.

We feel it critical to make this connection. Buick, too, once agreed, with a 1978 full-line catalog featuring many photographs and descriptions of past Buicks.

In this way, the role of Buick's heritage is not simply in the past; rather, it is about how the past defines the present, and the path to the future. This is to ensure continuity between past and future, and it is continuity of heritage that sustains a brand. Focusing on continuous improvement of these aspects keeps that brand authentic, within the fold of its parent company.

The story of Buick's heritage, we hope, adds meaning to the brand.

Besides, Buick's history is fascinating. As Buick General Manager Steve Shannon writes in the Foreword section of author Lawrence Gustin's latest book, David Buick's Marvelous Motor Car, "today, as we create new chapters in Buick's illustrious heritage with such outstanding models as Lucerne and others soon to come, it's a great time to reflect on the beginnings of the Buick marque more than 100 years ago" (David Buick's Marvelous Motor Car, Lawrence R. Gustin, Buick Gallery and Research Center, 2006).

Mr. Gustin himself, perhaps the nation's foremost Buick historian, recalls, "there were notable styling features - boat tails; hardtop convertibles; hood ornaments with goddess and bombsight designs; sweepspear bright metal side decorations; front fenders that swept back to touch the rear fenders; carnivorous pop-art grilles of the '40s and '50s, and - most famous of all - portholes.

"And great engines after the early valve-in-heads, including the Fireball straight-8; the so-called nailhead V8, and the 3800 3.8-liter V6, also available turbocharged and then supercharged" (David Buick's Marvelous Motor Car, Lawrence R. Gustin, Buick Gallery and Research Center, 2006).

Moreover, Buick's heritage is Buick's alone. It cannot be taken from Buick (although, admittedly, it is also Buick's to lose).

It cannot be bought. No Japanese automaker, for instance, has ever built a classic car - by the Classic Car Club of America's definition of fine or unusual foreign or domestic motor cars built between, and including the years 1925 and 1948, and distinguished for their respective fine design; high engineering standards, and superior workmanship.

Finally, Buick's heritage is important. After all, the inventor of the overhead-valve gasoline engine was also the founding base for General Motors. As author Lawrence R. Gustin writes, "if nothing else had happened, William C. Durant's promotion of the Buick Motor Company into a major industry and Henry Ford's introduction of the Model T would have made 1908 a memorable year for the U.S. automobile industry" (Buick: A Complete History, Terry B. Dunham & Lawrence R. Gustin, Automobile Quarterly, 2002).

Yet, of course, something else did happen; in the short five years since its incorporation, Buick had inspired General Motors - a corporation shortly to become the largest producer of automobiles in the world - and its best years were yet to follow.

We fully recognize that neither Buick nor General Motors as a whole should live in the past. They are, after all, not museums. However, it bears noting that General Motors' recent Then and Now spots, which reminded the public of GM's contribution to America's culture and to its economic success, enjoyed great critical and public acclaim.

Q. Is design not subjective? If so, why discuss Buick design at all?

A. The idea that design is subjective is, we submit, not entirely accurate. If it were, people like Chrysler's Tom Gale in the '90s, or Robert A. Lutz at Chrysler in that period (and at GM today) would not spend enormous effort to make their design departments more proactive in the product development process (rather than reactive).

Whether or not a car's design appeals to a person's particular aesthetic sensibilities is certainly subjective.

However, whether or not a design is fresh; whether a design is outlandish or subtle; whether a design compromises a particular element of packaging in return for a specific styling element, and even - to some degree- whether a design is appropriate for a particular brand is emphatically not subjective.

For instance, the Buick LaCrosse compromises entry and egress, slightly, to give its owner the distinctiveness of a coupé-style roofline. This is not subjective; although whether the owner feels that the compromise is worthwhile might extend into subjective territory.

Thus, whether someone's opinion of a car's design is carefully considered is not entirely a subjective matter. If an observer were to dismiss a car's design based solely on its nation of origin, for instance, one hopes that their opinion would not be given credence in any thoughtful analysis of the vehicle.

Buick was among the first automakers to begin offering its customers style; i.e: cars with - first - diversified ornamentation for whose distinctiveness customers were willing to pay, and later intricate forms; surfacing, and detailing. Neither this, nor the importance of style at Buick, is a subjective matter.

As Del Coates, columnist and professor of industrial design at San Jose State University puts it, "modern cars are so close to par with respect to performance; drivability; reliability; durability; creature comforts and safety that most people can't perceive the differences" ('Design Matters', Sports Car International, July 2004).

We seek to consider those differences, while incorporating design - whose aspects of grace and presence (or lack thereof) are vital to Buick - among them.

Famed Communications Researcher Marshall McLuhan once observed, the medium is the message. For the modern Buick, there is dichotomy in this, in that rich craftsmanship - essentially an olde-worlde goal - must today meet sophisticated technology. Yet Buick design is more complex than simple dichotomy; note, for instance, the headlamp of the Buick Enclave, its high technology framed beautifully in a manner so natural that it recalls that of a fine watch.

For Buick, the present of 2006 can coexist with 103 years of the past - and the integration of the brand's heritage into something that is both worthwhile and unique today is, for us, a fascinating process.

Q. Why does Buick fascinate you so?

A. Fascinations with brands are a tricky thing to explain, are they not? After all, no one needs a V8-powered Buick Lucerne when a Chevrolet Cobalt will transport them through their errands adequately enough.

Somehow, though, some products become greater than the sum of their parts.

In 1940, Chris Sinsabaugh - a newspaperman who had covered the automobile industry from its inception - wrote that "barring the initial success of Olds, which had begun to bog down toward the end of the first decade of the century, Buick was the first real success of the automobile industry and did more to promote the industry's well-being, in terms of public education, engineering advancement, and manufacturing progress than perhaps any other company" (Buick: A Complete History, Terry B. Dunham & Lawrence R. Gustin, Automobile Quarterly, 2002).

In 1965, "everybody anticipated the Buick... the top-of-the-line Electra 225," recalls a colleague who was stationed at Fort Louis, Washington at the time, and who remembers making regular weekend trips from the base to the nearest dealership to gaze at the newest Buicks.

Thirteen years later, as part of Buick's 75^th Anniversary festivities, June 1978 saw an open house in Flint, Michigan draw 36,000 visitors, with over 600 early Buicks parading through town. For Buick's 85th anniversary in 1988, more than 800 vintage Buicks were brought to Flint by their owners. 2003 - Buick's Centennial - drew more than 1,700 Buicks.

What our colleague - and countless visitors to Buick's celebrations over the years - experienced was, as Mercedes-Benz Director of Global Marketing Communications J Justus Schneider puts it so eloquently, "the power of a brand: the aura of absolute specialness, something that nobody could copy and something that made you want to own it, for reasons way beyond its physical properties.

"Brands intertwine with our everyday existence, giving meaning to events; moments, or periods in our lives. They have deep roots, getting passed on from generation to generation. Many brands we use or admire today have such long histories, yet the chances are they will be used or admired by our children too" (Enduring Passion, Leslie Butterfield, John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

It is for these reasons - and more specific, typically Buick attributes - that the Buick brand fascinates us: for the authenticity of an automaker that invented the valve-in-head engine, and for the magnanimity of a brand that counts gloriously extraneous ventiports among its unique styling cues.

"When better automobiles are built, Buick will build them," said GM founder William C. Durant of the cornerstone of his nascent company, in the early 1900s. Buick became what Durant had promised it would be: "the pivotal part of a very large institution" (Buick: A Complete History, Terry B. Dunham & Lawrence R. Gustin, Automobile Quarterly, 2002).

"When times were bad in the early-1920s, it was the profits from Buick that kept GM going," recalled Forbes columnist Jerry Flint recently, adding to his comments a period quote from GM leader Alfred P. Sloan: "it was Buick that made any kind of General Motors car line worth talking about." ('Reinventing Buick,' Forbes, March 4^th, 2003).

"To many, this brand holds special significance," writes author Don Bent, adding that for these many, "it symbolizes a car that is better than the average automobile, but without the brash and flash of excessively expensive vehicles" (A Place Called Buick, Don Bent, 2005).

As Motor Trend put it in 1955, "Buick brings to buyers something unique."

What is this unique quality of Buick? Road Test magazine, testing the 1972 Riviera, thought it resulted from an "unusual group of attributes: unique styling; roomy, luxury-level comfort, and well above average performance capabilities in a comparatively low-volume, assembly-line production car" (Road Test, August 1972).

By something of a corollary, we believe Buick's uniqueness derives from the four qualities of ergonomics; grace, power and reassurance. All automotive design and engineering is a compromise; in other words, prioritizing some things by nature deemphasizes others. Buick has held steadfast to the above four priorities, through the ages, adapting them as the automobile itself has adapted, even through several upheavals.

The Buick's compromise is thus consistent - and, we feel, commendable. Yet adaptation, and relatively minimal use of the benchmarking processes that are all too common in the industry, has ensured that it has not always been predictable.

For instance, when Buick introduced its first postwar compact in 1961, Motor Trend called it "sensibly-sized." That car, the 1962 Buick Special, won the Motor Trend Car of the Year award. In 1979, the pioneering, turbocharged Buick Riviera S-Type won the same honor.

Correspondent Tom McCahill called the 1962 Buick Special "a well-calculated compromise... less compact than some cars on the market... more power than any of the new smaller cars I have tested up to this writing."

One hundred and three years after Buick's debut, the phrase well-calculated compromise describes it well among its peers.

Buick does not regularly set trends, it is true, but it does not slavishly follow them, either.

"No argument about it: Buick didn't start the performance-car movement," once admitted Hot Rod magazine, albeit qualifying the comment with, "but they seem to be the only automaker able to hang on to performance and deliver clean air at the same time" (Hot Rod, February 1972).

"In the super-competitive U.S. auto industry, each manufacturer aligns most offerings toe-to-toe with those of the other makers in type; size; options, and price - a practice called slotting," once summarized Road Test magazine, though adding quickly, "there are some notable exceptions... one of these is an offering from General Motors Corp.'s Buick Division - the Riviera.

"Riviera is without direct competition... it represents an almost unique combination of high styling with an innovative flair, plus a fairly strong emphasis on both luxury and on a rather high level of performance.

"All that in the same package!" (Road Test, August 1972).

Motor Trend noted of the contemporary Electra 225 flagship, "we tend to lose sight of the fact that the pen and ink men and the clay cutters in the design studios up North do their creating about three years before we see the end result in the local showroom. When their efforts are timely, it gives the appearance of riding the crest of the tide, when in fact the creativity has either anticipated public taste, or in some cases, generated the change.

"With the Electra 225 as the case in point, it would appear that the designers have earned their clairvoyant diplomas. A tasteful blending of reassuring lower mass, topped by some slick, almost aerodynamic, upper lines produces a bread; beans, and beer solidarity, with the essence of plastic-corked Cabernet Sauvignon" (Motor Trend, August 1971).

Buick is confidence without arrogance; as Buick once wrote of one of its models, "it does not beg you to love it. It does not over-promise or boast. It simply is. And its presence inspires affection."

Rather, Buick's confidence imparts a sense of security - of reassurance - that Buick drivers have appreciated for over a century. The Buick has long been a faithful companion to a successful career. "As untemperamental as an old friend," wrote Buick of its Skyhawk in 1974.

So strong has Buick's consistency and faithfulness been that the brand has attained a somewhat staid reputation over the years -

- one that is not justified given that Buick built, in 1987, the fastest production car in North America; from 1988 through 1991, among the last hand-built cars produced in the United States; in the mid-90s, a car dubbed among the most collectible of its era, and at the turn of the Millennium, among the first crossovers.

The Buick owner is regularly derided in the press for their age yet, when the time comes to replace their vehicle, the Buick owner is among the most brand-loyal in the industry (per Polk Automotive Loyalty studies).

Meanwhile, quality surveys continually suggest that their old car continues to provide faithful service well into its second and third ownership cycles.

For the Buick driver, the brand rewards their trust. In that sense, the Buick is not simply a model of consistent application of core values, but takes on the role that every 100+ year old brand attains.

Such brands, author Leslie Butterfield writes, are "part of our parents' legacy to us.

"The bonds we form with those brands are immensely strong, and are sometimes intrinsically linked with childhood memories.

"Originally, brands may have been chosen to meet simple physiological needs... but as we've grown up with them, our relationships have become more complex.

"... (they) meet needs that go well beyond the physical, that are in fact about self-expression.

"They are a new kind of currency in our lives - and we surround ourselves with them precisely for the value that they bring" (Enduring Passion, Leslie Butterfield, John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

The Buick is not for everyone; it would be glib sophistry to pretend otherwise.

Even though Buick has taken a quieter approach to elucidating its heritage - one that unfortunately evinces itself most when driving the car for a more extended period of time than in a simple test-drive around the block - it is the elucidation of (and experience provided by) this heritage that makes a Buick Lucerne more valuable than, say, an upstart Hyundai Azera.

That said, Buick is not strong enough to support some of its more obvious mistakes (the J-Body, Cavalier-based Skyhawk of the '80s comes to mind).

Yet it has been able to support successful entry into the crossover (Rendezvous) and SUV (Rainier) markets in recent years.

Moreover, Buick is virtually a synonym for magnanimity, lending meaning to the category of large car. You've no doubt heard the phrase, as big as a Buick, to describe the size of something - and we've all read the media comparisons of Acura and Lexus luxury vehicles to Buicks, much as those brands cannot seem to release sporting automobiles without the inevitable comparisons to BMW.

One hundred and three years after Buick's debut, we believe in Buick's mission of beautiful, premium vehicles with ergonomic functionality behind romantic, flowing form; of "luxury with taste, and performance with comfort," as Motor Trend once expressed it, electing the 1979 Riviera S-Type its Car of the Year.

We believe in unwavering dedication to craftsmanship; to dependability, and to impeccable road manners.

We believe in the Buick mission as expressed by General Manager Ed Mertz in 1991: "Buick's bottom line is to provide premium American motorcars that meet - and hopefully surpass - our customers' expectations. If we provide automobiles that fit our upscale image and that are of high quality and high value, then sales and profits will take care of themselves."

We believe in American touring cars long on a lineage of ergonomics; grace; power, and reassurance of ownership, every time they take to the road.

We believe in honest magnanimity with a touch of intrigue.

We believe in the power of understatement; in quiet power that surges promptly when called upon, and in the celebration of romance in automotive design.

We believe in cars that do not rely on options to qualify as luxury cars.

We are cheered by the thought that an automobile can be made to ride and handle well, with neither ungainly body control, nor unnecessary judder. A car, we feel, should both follow the road, and soften the road's harsher aspects. We believe that the modern Buick, with its honed multi-link suspensions and QuietTuned structure, has the formula.

We believe that true evolution means embracing the best of the past while moving ceaselessly toward the future. We believe in a marvelous combination of well-tried ideas, lovingly executed.

We believe in cars that are distinctly American in flavor, but capable of playing in a world-class market. As Bill Ayres, reviewing the 1995 Buick Riviera, wrote for the Abilene Reporter-News, "I think some of the European automakers could learn a few things about design from Buick."

As GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz put it in a GM-wide memo, circa the Fall of 2001, "most customers want a vehicle of new, fresh, exciting appearance, with a rich, value-transmitting interior... a great powertrain; superb dynamics, and - obviously - safety and quality." We believe the modern Buick is well positioned to provide these attributes.

As CAR columnist Stephen Bayley has written, "no matter what technology is available, unless a car is carrying a load of effective imagery it is unlikely to enjoy genuine popular success" (Concept Car Design: Driving the Dream, Jonathan Bell, RotoVision, 2003). So we believe in the latest expression of Buick heritage.

Indeed, Buick's lustrous heritage is awe-inspiring. As Forbes columnist Jerry Flint put it on the eve of Buick's one-hundredth anniversary, "Buick has a grand history, the grandest of any brand at General Motors" ('Reinventing Buick,' Forbes, March 4^th, 2003).

Buick has been around for long enough to have witnessed, first hand, the mainstreaming and mass production of the automobile. While the car itself has, as a whole, benefited from changes to make it more public-friendly, it has also been a challenge for manufacturers to hide the pedestrian qualities of mass production in sheetmetal; fit, and finish.

We believe that the modern Buick does a superlative job of just that. As journalist Brooks Peterson wrote of the 1995-1999 Buick Riviera for the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, "it's cars like this... that keep me from despairing utterly."

GM Vice Chairman Lutz, addressing the perception gap, recently expressed, "we'd like to see an end to the stereotyping and categorization of domestic cars in print" ('Three Years and Counting,' Ward's Auto World, August 1^st, 2004).

So, too, would we.

Would that more than one hundred years of heritage was a prerequisite for enduring grace; that America might seek cars best suited to American roads, and that enduring values were fashionable on the showroom floor, Buick might capture the heart more quickly.

Perhaps you are among the Buick loyalists who - per Polk Automotive Loyalty studies - are among the most staunch in the industry.

Or, perhaps you're new to all of this.

Either way, welcome. We hope you enjoy reading this site. If you're a car enthusiast, in particular, we hope you enjoy the photography and discussion of the Buick's attributes, the qualities that make us Buick enthusiasts.

If so - take a test drive. And let us know what you thought.

Q. What is the perception gap?

A. Roughly defined, the perception gap describes the general idea - and the perpetuation thereof - that domestic vehicles are not the equivalent of their import counterparts in quality and reliability; performance, and technology.

The perception gap surfaced, in one instance, in a Hart/ GM June 29^th, 2005 study. 77% of consumers believed that either Toyota or Honda lead in developing alternative-fuel vehicles. GM was viewed as having the poorest record, despite twenty GM models rated at 30 mpg or better (the Buick LaCrosse being among them); despite $1 billion in GM hydrogen fuel-cell research (approximately what Toyota has spent on plants to build trucks in recent years), and despite GM's investment in building hybrid buses.

The perception gap is costly. The domestics invest more and more in product, yet the consumer is neither inclined nor encouraged to pay for improvements. In one instance, GM's Quadrasteer system on full-size pickups and SUVs through 2005 was cancelled because not enough customers appreciated its high-speed stability enhancement. No media - to our recollection - did, either, even though the NHTSA had expressed concern about stability control in heavier-duty vehicles. First costing $5,000, Quadrasteer was cheapened to $2,000, and finally was no longer available.

Who lost? Everyone concerned, consumers included.

Quadrasteer was an extraordinary system - one that consumers should have appreciated for its safety, and enthusiasts and strategists could laud for its uniqueness. Its failure on the market illustrates a key problem. Without consumer understanding - even in the most basic terms - of the issues in this complex industry, the car-buying public might well deserve the derivative vehicles that will be headed its way. Manufacturers will be free to merely change what we see; may ignore what we do not, and might never again reach the potential that this industry has attained several times in the last hundred years.

How does this relate to Buick?

"Our quality - as rated by a number of consumer groups - remains among the highest in the industry, but consumers don't know this," noted Buick Marketing Director Margaret Brooks last year.

"The problem with Buick hasn't been quality so much as public perception," writes Edmunds.com (Edmunds, October 27^th, 2004).

Reviewer Automobile.com writes of the LaCrosse, "this is one formidable contender, easily ready to do battle with any import in the land," yet admits that "the tough sell will be getting people to go down to a Buick store and test it out at all."

"Buick is perhaps the nation's most underappreciated automotive nameplate," according to U.S. News magazine (U.S. News, February 15^th, 2005).

What's going on? And what does it mean for the consumer?

Back in 1954, Buick had a problem with its power brakes. The power-assisted cylinder which would fail was provided by an outside supplier, but it is also true that sufficient long-term testing was not performed. Ralph Nader, in his book Unsafe at Any Speed more than a decade later (1965), would use the incident to criticize Buick's handling of the problem: quietly telling dealers to make the fixes instead of announcing a public recall.

Where are Nader's comments on the imports' general notoriety in this practice today?

Curiously, Nader also failed to point out that Buick's revised, finned-aluminum brakes - motoring's newest advancement for 1957 - were among the best in the industry. Two years later, Buick cooled the rear brakes, too. By 1967, front power discs and aluminum rear brakes were available.

Having missed all of this, Nader certainly never mentioned that the 1924 Buick was the first mass-produced American car with four-wheel brakes, period.

Some of the perception gap is rooted in reality, if in past reality.

It is, certainly, true that product development at Buick turned into a fit of stops and starts back in 1973, when the first gas crisis and government-mandated emissions legislation combined to push the magnanimous manufacturer into a tight corner to which it was not accustomed.

By now, the David and Goliath story is common knowledge, albeit that different interpretations have arisen. The domestics had become complacent, growing used to having it easy. They - Buick included - would develop their cars; launch them, and people would queue up to buy them. It has been said that the period Lincoln Town Car generated half of all the profits chalked up by the whole Ford Corporation.

Then, things changed. The first gas crisis of 1973; a slew of emissions regulations in which various questionable responses such as air-injection (which delivered fresh air to the exhaust ports for oxidation of hydrocarbons and conversion of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide) could gobble up five brake horsepower, and questionable trade practices, combined to create the perfect storm.

A ridiculously undervalued Japanese yen met half-hearted Voluntary-Restraint Agreement import quotas (VRAs) agreed upon between Washington and Tokyo. The resulting Japanese transplant production was financed in part by the selling of Japanese vehicles at prices lower in the United States than in their domestic, Japanese market. That's dumping; it's not legal, and yet it assisted the Japanese in finding the resources to improve their vehicles in an automotive market that had undergone depression twice in a decade.

Meanwhile, American congressman and senators were enlisted to lobby for Japanese transplant production, even while postwar Japan never attempted to similarly open its own market for automotive sales, let alone production. In 1927, American manufacturers had held 97% of the Japanese market and had produced cars for that market within its borders, before being unceremoniously thrown out. By the early-80s, the Big Three combined were lucky to sell 4,000 vehicles in Japan per year. By 1997, that number had climbed to just 25,000 vehicles.

Robert A. Lutz, the only man to have risen to the near-top of each of the Big Three over the past twenty-five years, puts it succinctly: "the Japanese did generally build better cars, and they did, at the same time, routinely engage in unfair trade - which, by the way, in turn helped give them the resources to build better cars!

"And while I, for one, readily conceded the former point, hardly anyone in Washington or in the media would concede the latter. It seemed almost as if the American mind was incapable of grasping both propositions simultaneously" (Guts, Robert A. Lutz, John Wiley & Sons, 1998, 2003).

It is true that American manufacturing standards thirty-five years ago began to lag. We'd admit, too, that several schemes intended to correct the problem did not quite work. Former assembly-line worker Ben Hamper, in his book Rivethead, writes of a man dressing up as a cat, prowling the aisles and spurring people on to higher standards! BBC Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, reviewing Rivethead, writes, "equally peculiar was the later scheme, which involved the erection of several sizeable electronic notice boards all over the plant. These kept the people informed of sales; production figures, and such, but could be used for messages.

"One day it would say, quality is the backbone of good workmanship, and on another, safety is safe, but Hamper saves his vitriol for the day when he looked up from underneath a Suburban to see the sign, squeezing rivets is fun!" (Born to be Riled, Jeremy Clarkson, BBC Worldwide Limited, 1999).

It is also true that, in the 1970s, much was invested by Detroit automakers in downsized platforms that drew too much from their predecessors, and that new hardware was generally a rarity. Besot by problems with its more innovative designs, and confused by the cooler reception to the cars that it would rather build, Detroit was inconsistent about what to do next, going through several new product plans in as many weeks, and becoming generally fearful of taking risks.

Meanwhile, the imports featured unconventional; sophisticated, and sometimes whimsical advertising and attitude. "Raw economics drove them to find ways to gain maximum effect from skimpy advertising and promotional budgets, and the pioneering spirit of their people led to independent thinking," recalls Vice-President of British Leyland in America J. Bruce McWilliams.

"It was fun to be the tail that wagged the dog" (Triumph Cars in America, Michael Cook, MBI, 2001).

Less from more became a mantra.

Moreover, obsessed with creating products that would respond to a period in time that it continued to view as an aberration, Detroit created vehicles that were a product of uncertainty, rather than cars that people wanted to hold on to.

With the strategy; management, and quality problems surrounding Detroit, what early-adopter in these troubled times wanted anything further to do with the perceived excess of chrome, or of any styled effort, for that matter? The result was somewhat subjective reporting from early-adopters and opinion leaders, an attitude which would filter down to the general public. The followers were about to be led, and in a far more subjective way than much of the mainstream media has led us to believe.

As an example, Car and Driver was incredibly critical (to the point of being unquotable) of the second-generation Chevrolet Monte Carlo's lines - yet it is a design which today exhibits decidedly more flourish than the "Mercedes-esque creases" and "coachwork equivalent of the blush of success" of the second-generation Honda Civic (both were reviewed in the same, Car and Driver, July 1980 issue).

"For every man who drives one," said Patrick Bedard of the Monte Carlo in an issue that waxed lyrical over the Civic's looks, "thousands have to look at it, and no car could perform brilliantly enough to make that sacrifice worthwhile. Chevrolet has indeed let loose a blight upon the landscape." We'd continue, but some of the rest was actually unprintable.

Design suffered considerably. "All that today's motorist seems to require is currently fashionable ostentation in styling, and the knowledge that his car will survive being driven at 13mph into a block of concrete," wrote the late, great LJK Setright in 1976, adding, "the age of artistry in car design, like the age of chivalry, is gone."

"The quickest way for American automakers to convince consumers that they were coming down from the clouds and offering efficient, functional machines was to append this functionalist look to the surface of their cars," writes Associate Professor of Sociology David Gartman.

"The square, stern lines of the cars of the late 1970s to early 1980s assured Americans that they could consume themselves out of the indulgent excesses without altering the structure of Fordist production that gave rise to the notion of salvation through consumption to begin with" (Auto Opium: A Social History of American Automobile Design, David Gartman, Routledge, 1994).

This, in turn, took romance out of the American car.

All of the above is true. It is also true that low-tax gasoline in the Reagan Eighties breathed new life into the large car, a category once thought dead.

However, there's no doubt that, today, Japanese manufacturers have done fairly similar things and yet media concern - from enthusiast and (self-dubbed) consumer-oriented media alike - has yet to take hold.

Also today, under GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz, Buick product development emphasizes design; high levels of material and assembly quality, and satisfying vehicle dynamics.

"A good planning process can be an excellent baseline tool, a means of generating solid data," wrote Lutz in GM-wide memo in the Fall of 2001, cautioning, "but it cannot robotically create a good future portfolio." Thus creativity has been reemphasized. This is vital to Buick, which depends on a dose of romanticism.

In this way, Lutz is driving GM toward J. Bruce McWilliams' characterization of the imports' goal in the '70s: "lean organizations limited the layers of approval that so often hamper bold programs, so that bright minds were able to exercise their imaginations" (Triumph Cars in America, Michael Cook, MBI, 2001).

Romanticism in this entire industry suffered in the Seventies and Eighties, as angular shapes and wild graphics first threatened to ruin all appreciation of nuance, followed by the box-shaped function and common sense of rationalized platforms. Emotions were rediscovered in the Nineties, with nostalgia coming forward at the turn of the Millennium.

Today, more than a decade of complacency in the face of unfair competition has produced better Buicks - and better cars - than ever. As Lutz writes, you'd be wrong to think that unfair competition almost killed the domestic industry; rather, in Lutz's view, unfair competition has saved American industry, forcing it "initially against its will, to face realities and make certain changes that (it) would never have done voluntarily.

"The prospect of failure is a great motivator. It can be a wonderful teacher" (Guts, Robert A. Lutz, John Wiley & Sons, 1998, 2003).

In turn, if the media were held to the same standards as those to which it holds the domestic automakers (regularly under a microscope), would our media not improve?

If Buick; General Motors, or even the domestic automotive industry as a whole is to be placed under a metaphorical magnifier that seeks to expose its shortcomings, should we not ensure that our metrics for measuring inadequacy are accurate?

In many respects, the perception gap is inaccurate and based on invalid metrics.

Consumer Reports' predicted reliability surveys, for instance, are so statistically questionable that a preliminary college-level statistics class would render them defunct. This is an organization which has never seen the need to publish either the number of responses per vehicle, or the margins-of-error between models. How can one possibly compare the provided data across models without such information?

Veteran automotive journalist and Autoline Detroit host John McElroy recently suggested this to Consumer Reports Senior Director of Auto Testing David Champion, who admitted the disclaimer: "our job... is to serve our subscribers... the people that we are helping (are) the same people that are filling-in the survey" (see the episode here, with RealPlayer). It sounds like a comment on questionable external validity that should, in the interest of accuracy, be given prominent place!

Surely, the consumer-oriented label is no more than self-applied.

Meanwhile, automotive reviews increasingly lack the knowledge they showed in the past, deriding difficult subjects - e.g: design; ride; handling, etc. - as subjective, while preferring to proffer prose on a vehicle's image and/ or reposting large sections of press release.

This does not, of course, apply to all media. Yet that it applies to any is reason enough for concern. It suggests that the media has abdicated its raison d'être: to understand the industry and its products well enough to educate the consumer.

There is much to understand.

Every vehicle has a fixed product development budget. Even though former Volkswagen CEO Ferdinand Piëch perhaps best understood that flock-lining the glove-box would encourage the consumer to believe that the same amount of time had been spent on machining their vehicle's cylinder head, the truth is that changing the parts you see leaves less money to change the parts you do not. Perhaps this explains why Toyota's Camry has, year in and year out, featured what is among the cheapest suspension systems in the business.

Brand management of Buicks as individual models is dead; rather, all Buicks - LaCrosse; Lucerne; Rainier; Rendezvous, and Terraza - are Buicks first and foremost, the descendants of a storied, 103-year-old brand.

Do they share platforms with other General Motors vehicles? Yes, and even a few pieces here and there.

So, too, do Acura's $33k TL and $49k RL with the $18k Honda Accord.

So, too, does Acura's $30k RDX with the $20k Honda CR-V.

So, too, does Acura's $37k MDX with the (previous) $25k Honda Odyssey.

So, too, does Lexus' $36k RX350 with the Toyota Camry.

Lexus' $32k ES350 is a reskinned Toyota Camry, while Toyota's Avalon stretches both Camry's platform and its price (to as much as $34k) while using the same dual-link rear suspension - one link less than what keeps a Buick LaCrosse's rear tires perpendicular to the road, and two links fewer than at Lucerne's rear.

"The secret to success is to have flexible architectures that are integrated into flexible manufacturing systems and then drive lots of variants where you have absolutely no clue that the underlying platform is shared by anything else," says GMNA President Gary Cowger (Automotive News, May 5^th, 2003).

He's right. Evidently, the Japanese agree. One cannot drive the relatively low volumes of an Acura; a Buick, or a Lexus with unique platforms for each model.

We hear much about how the LaCrosse is derived from the W-Body platform, which will have been progressively refined (and, recently, revamped) over the past twenty years by the time LaCrosse is replaced. Yet no media outlet ever gives a name to the Camry's platform, which can equally be dated back decades. Certainly, the Camry's rear MacPherson struts - a rather unique piece of ill-advised cost-cutting in its segment - have been continually applied even though the weight of the car has climbed considerably over the generations.

It also bears noting that the original W-Body, at the outset, cost $5 billion to develop. Such was its outlay that it was for a period the most money-losing platform in history (Wall Street Journal, July 28^th, 1989).

DesRosiers Automotive Reports suggests - correctly, we'd submit - that "most consumers fundamentally don't understand the vehicle industry and look for comfort from others when purchasing a new vehicle. What are the automotive journalists recommending; what are my friends and relatives buying; what is the street talk about specific vehicles?

"A negative psychology exists that develops into a vicious circle... (which is) very tangible and real to the consumer" (DesRosiers Automotive Reports, November 15^th, 2003).

That's a pity, really - and it raises concerns for Buick, a brand of quiet professionalism. Sometimes, competence is a curse. A car can be one of the best all-rounders around, responsive and sturdy, and through this lack of serious vices somehow our positive impressions fade.

"The Buick LeSabre is one of those cars that subtly sneaks up on you," wrote Todd Hayes for the Washington Times in 1998, adding, "what it does do, though, is reassure you that American automakers can make some of the cleanest, most tasteful luxury sedans in the world when they put their minds to it."

Autoweek wrote of the 1998 Park Avenue, "too bad there isn't an award for the most underrated car of the year. If there were, somebody at Buick would have to clear some shelf space."

Thus it is no surprise that longtime industry analyst Peter DeLorenzo of AutoExtremist.com has called the Buick Lucerne the "sleeper hit of the year" (AutoExtremist.com, December 14^th, 2005).

Aside from the issue of Buick understatement, the perception gap is doubly hard on Buick because it is an upscale brand in a culture that has been reticent to believe that Americans can do upscale as well as foreigners.

Author Thomas E. Bonsall, whose work is published by the Stanford University Press, explains this phenomenon best, speaking of "our distorted cultural bias toward things American.

"When it comes to Mass Culture, we think - unreasonably - that no one else in the world can hold a candle to us.

"When it comes to quality (from luxury goods to the fine arts) it is just the reverse. We automatically grant special status to things foreign, while reflexively denigrating our own achievements or, perhaps worse, ignoring them altogether.

"Every educated American knows of Picasso, but how many could name a 20^th century American painter?

"It is no different with high-quality automobiles. If it is built in the Black Forest by elves, it is accorded an instant respect an American car maker has to struggle for years to attain. In the area of our finer accomplishments, people around the world tend to have a better appreciation for us than we do ourselves.

"After all, Picasso drove a Lincoln!" (The Lincoln Story, Thomas E. Bonsall, Standard University Press, 2004)

We consider the perception gap a clear and present instance of cognitive dissonance. As author Randy Leffingwell writes in Porsche Legends, the concept dates back to psychologist Leon Festinger's The True Believer. "It works this way: the practitioners acquire an item of markedly inferior quality or performance. But since they have paid a goodly sum for this item - and because they do not want to be embarrassed admitting its failure or their possible bad judgment - the owners claim its performance is entirely satisfactory. If not downright terrific. The behavior is dissonant from the facts as known" (Porsche Legends, Randy Leffingwell, MBI, 2002).

There can be little doubt that the domestic automotive manufacturers - Buick included - made critical mistakes in the wake of the 1973 and 1980 gas crises. There can also be little doubt that, in 2006, Buick builds some of the highest-quality vehicles in the industry.

No longer does the Buick driver hold a steering-wheel whose on-center feel is masked by a gaping sneeze factor. No - the Buick is responsive, with progressive steering mid-corner; progressive throttle, and progressive brakes.

Meanwhile, dissonance is clearly visible when it comes to the import manufacturers.

Head of the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Automotive Research Institute David Cole once theorized, "one afternoon, Gloria Steinem goes out and buys a Toyota Camry. That night, she dreams that not a single female hand touched that car as it was being built" (Jump Start: Japan Comes to the Heartland, David Gelsanliter, Harper & Collins, 1990). Such concerns have rarely been raised by the mainstream media.

One of Buick's more curious issues in combating the perception gap is that so many older Buicks survive! The sheer durability of the 3800 - the Buick Six - is, in particular (named one of the ten best engines of the 20^th century), at part to 'blame.'

Time moves on in interior materials and automotive technology, yet we are reminded day after day of where Buick was ten; fifteen, and - occasionally - even thirty years ago (this latter period being a difficult time for automotive design in general).

Moreover, cars depreciate as they age, and so older Buicks - no matter how desirable their brand of luxuriousness when new - fall into the hands of owners for whom secondary repairs are a tertiary consideration.

This having been said, we know several owners of older Buicks who understand that their vehicles are as much ambassadors for the brand, going forward, as is a new Lucerne. Please feel free to share stories of your Buick's durability with us (members@FriendsOfBuick.com) - or to read those of others at the independent CarSurvey.org Buick section.

Analyst and automotive media alike have latched onto the idea that GM's many brands are unnecessary, ignoring both how fragmented today's market is, and how much GM's brands have meant to people in the past. Rather than rashly discontinuing brands, moves are afoot within General Motors to make each brand both more distinctive, and more relevant.

We believe that Buick is a unique opportunity to challenge the perception gap. Buick is, after all, a premium American luxury brand in a time when American and premium are not what they were in the Fifties and Sixties. Buick is also a brand of evolutionary rather than revolutionary design - of timeless style - and the periphery of assuming that a car is technologically undeveloped simply because its design is evergreen is a fallacy that Buick illustrates well. Consider the 1997 Riviera, for instance; two years into the 1995-1999 Riviera's life cycle, Buick upgraded the rear suspension with all-aluminum control arms; knuckles, and related hardware, reducing unsprung weight and substantively improving ride quality.

That's continuous improvement - and it is worth considerably more than simply changing a fascia or dashboard console.

Traditional virtues have a way of fading into the background. In every field, there is a constant flow of new and exciting things; ideas; techniques, attracting our interest and diverting our attention. We tend to think in terms of the new way, the fashionable way, and not to wonder if the new way is really the better way.

There is a fine line between constant innovation - of the type that perhaps Mercedes-Benz has practiced in recent years - and continuous improvement. It is also important to discern between different kinds of improvement. For instance, for the 2002 E-Class, as much 90% of the components were new. This contrasts, notes author Leslie Butterfield, with a figure of just 30% for a new Lexus model (Enduring Passion, Leslie Butterfield, John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

Buick marketing has not been loud enough about its brand's key, quiet virtue of continuous improvement, leaving the impression that Buick has become staid.

Yet this marketing faux-pas aside, we're certainly not convinced that the fundamentals of Buick products need to change. As marketing consultants Al and Laura Ries write, "the brand that tries to follow the day-to-day whims of consumers is a brand that has no future" (The Origin of Brands, Al & Laura Ries, HarperBusiness, 2004).

Indeed. Buick should keep in mind Mercedes-Benz's troubles as that proud company reacted to criticism far too quickly, only fostering further speculation and conjecture.

The task that GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has ahead of him, for instance, is the complete revamp of GM's global operations, and not merely the creation of one generation of peripheral, media-pleasing hits. In our view, the key for General Motors is to adapt the global organization to accept and empower people who are able to balance the use of global platforms and parts that are available to them with an understanding of how to adapt these to the local markets their brands serve.

All in all, if the perception gap is widening, as domestic manufacturers produce better and better vehicles yet receive similar - or, in some cases, less - credit, then consumers should be concerned. The perception gap is costly; it is inaccurate and is based on invalid metrics, and it is self-defeating.

All in all, the perception gap is a tragedy for all concerned. It produces complacency and discourages innovation; it does not serve the consumer, and - if left unchecked - it will unnecessarily risk the American automotive industry. Ultimately, the loss of both American manufacturing and of American skill in design and engineering may hang in the balance.

FriendsOfBuick.com is an effort to articulate, as best we collectively can, the virtues of the modern Buick.

Meanwhile, at Buick, "with quiet confidence, we're just looking to remind people of our high quality performance," Buick Marketing Director Margaret Brooks affirmed last year.

Generally more buoyantly confident, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz recently told Britain's Channel 4 News, "I'll take you to see a Buick up close - and I challenge you to show me a Lexus/Toyota or an Acura/Honda or an Infiniti/Nissan with tighter body gaps and flanges; better interior fittings; sheetmetal quality, and so forth" (Channel 4 News, May 15^th, 2006).

As Buick gets it together in both its product development process, and in the products that process produces, it remains to be seen if our opinion leaders can forgive and forget the 1970s for long enough to take notice.

Q. Is Buick Quality truly superlative?

A. You might read more about the history of Buick Quality in our Reassurance section; here, we'll discuss the facts most relevant today.

The 2005 J.D. Power Initial Quality study ranked Buick at 100 problems per 100 vehicles, compared to Toyota's 105. Overall, Buick placed higher than Toyota; Honda; Mercedes-Benz; Audi, and more than two dozen other brands.

For long-term quality, J.D. Power's 2005 Vehicle Dependability study rated Buick at 163 problems per 100 vehicles - again, better than Toyota's 194.

One might expect, then, that Buick would stand behind its cars. This, it does, with a 4 year/ 50,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty that is the equal of Acura; Audi; BMW; Cadillac; Hummer; Infiniti; Jaguar; Land Rover; Lexus; Lincoln; Mercedes-Benz; Porsche, and Saab. Toyota and Honda are soundly beaten in this respect. Buick also trounces Toyota and Honda with its 5 year/ 100,000-mile powertrain warranty.

So confident is Buick in the body integrity of its products that it, additionally, warranties its cars against corrosion for 6 years.

Moreover, all 2007 Buicks offer roadside assistance coverage. Locked-out? Out of gas? Need a tow? Press your OnStar button or call 1-800-ROADSIDE. Buick has you covered for 5 years and 100,000 miles. This is peace-of-mind coverage that beats Toyota; and Honda offers none at all. Recently, MarketWatch.com Inc. referenced the program in an article praising roadside-assistance plans as being "among the few purchases that pays for itself the first time you use it" ('Motorist's best friend,' Marshall Loeb, MarketWatch.com Inc., May 21^st, 2006). At Buick, such reassurance is complimentary.

Buick dealerships even offer a year of roadside assistance with pre-owned Buicks.

To help you use the coverage, all Buicks since 2006 have come with standard OnStar support - a feature as useful in preventative maintenance as in actively assisting you in an emergency. Curious about a Check Engine alert in your Buick? A live OnStar advisor can help.

Moreover, every month, Buick - through OnStar - runs hundreds of diagnostic checks on your engine; transmission; ABS; air bags, and the OnStar system itself. You're then e-mailed the results, and told if any action needs to be taken. Between monthly reports, press the blue OnStar button at any time for a GM Goodwrench On-Demand diagnostic check. Knowing that your vehicle is ready for the road is just one more way OnStar gives you peace of mind. Best of all, it's part of your OnStar service, standard on all 2006 Buick models, so there's no additional charge.

To those unaware of Buick Quality, we would urge a close look at these facts. The muddled national policies and confusing times of the 1973 and 1981 gas crises produced equally confusing responses - a perception gap of sorts, one whose divorce from reality serves neither the industry nor the consumer.

Writing for the London Free Press, journalist Glen Woodcock recently admitted, "I've never been a huge fan of Consumer Reports and its annual auto issue. After all, I've had a lifelong passion for cars and this magazine treats them the same as it would a toaster; steam iron, or any other appliance.

"But there's one section of its auto issue I've always found interesting. That's where the magazine rates the reliability of vehicles in 14 key areas based not on the editors' observations, but on owners' reports.

"For up to the last eight model years, vehicles are assigned colored dots, depending on the reliability of components such as engine; electrical system, and suspension.

"A solid red dot is best.

"For Buicks, especially models built since 2002, red dots dominate.

"As the owner of several Buicks over the last 30 years, this reliability survey matches my own experience.

"Despite the stodgy image they've been given by the media, Buicks are reliable and last forever" ('Test Drive: Buick Lucerne a competent, refined cruiser,' Glen Woodcock, London Free Press, June 16^th, 2006).

Recently, Satisfaction: How Every Great Company Listens to the Voice of the Customer coauthor Chris Denove explained that "the data show the difference really is perceptual.

"Honda recently had transmission problems, but it got a pass because people expect Hondas to have good quality" (Detroit Free Press, April 10^th, 2006).

Meanwhile, among Toyota/ Lexus' competitors to the Buick, the Toyota Avalon has suffered from bad U-joint welds; faulty catalytic converters; a leak in the oil-supply line for the variable valve timing; vehicle drifting; rattling; abrupt shifting, and engine knocks (per this article from Automotive News).

This, atop Toyota recalls in 2006 of more than one million vehicles globally for items such as flanges (whose lack of durability could cause wheels to fall off); for faulty intermediate steering shafts, and for sliding yokes. U.S. recalls of Toyota cars and trucks rose more than tenfold from 2003 to 2005, to more than 2.2 million vehicles - including a recall for a steering relay rod which could crack under extreme steering maneuvers.

Toyota Avalon owner Kevin Clingenpeel writes, "I pulled up next to a Ford F-350, and I could hear my valve train clicking louder than his valvetrain." Clingenpeel adds that neither Toyota nor its dealers have been forthcoming about the problems.

Indeed, for its part, Toyota appears overwhelmed by the complexity of the luxury car category. "The Avalon is the most complex vehicle Toyota Division sells, so just by definition it's a problematic vehicle," says Toyota spokesman John Hanson ('Avalon shows dent in Toyota quality; fixes sought for problematic vehicles,' Automotive News, May 1^st, 2006).

Avalon owner Alan Seider, a Toyota driver since 1982, is quoted in the article as saying, "Toyota's build quality has declined in recent years, and there seems to be nothing the dealer can do." Seider indicates that his 2006 Avalon will likely be his last Toyota.

"Seider is far from alone," qualifies Automotive News, explaining that "Internet chat rooms such as Edmunds.com Town Hall are littered with complaints from Toyota loyalists about the redesigned Avalon..." ('Avalon shows dent in Toyota quality; fixes sought for problematic vehicles,' Automotive News, May 1^st, 2006)

Mind you, Mark Phelan of the Detroit Free Press noticed problems with the Avalon as far back as March 24^th, 2005. "Pieces are not supposed to fall off new cars. Particularly not new Toyotas. That's the reason people buy Toyotas. The company's mission statement is practically the pieces stay where we put them," Phelan started out.

"Mission not accomplished," he concluded of the $34,629 Avalon XLS he was testing, finding "several quality defects - including a dial that fell out and left a hole in the dashboard - leaving it trailing the competition.

"The dial to adjust the brightness of the instrument panel lights fell out of the dashboard the first time I touched it. The result was a hole the size of your index finger and the certainty of a visit to the service department.

"The ceiling-mounted buttons for the front dome lights squeaked, and they were made of what felt like the thinnest, cheapest plastic I can ever recall in a Toyota.

"The spring-loaded drawer that holds the controls for the navigation system never came all the way open on its own, and several pieces of colored trim on the dash and doors did not quite align."

Product is king, except when it is not, and it is stereotyped for other reasons.

As we write this, Toyota is recalling the 2007 Toyota Camry - less than a month after its launch - for its transmission's tendency to lose two gears during operation, thanks to a fastener within the transmission potentially coming loose in the first 500 miles of operation.

Moreover - Toyota appears to have recalled just 150 of the 5,800 Camrys equipped with the fastener, generally treating the problem with a technical-service bulletin sent to dealers. In this way, the company stays under the recall radar.

What of Camry owners? "As a result, owners must wait for the transmission to fail before it can be repaired under warranty," writes Automotive News ('Bad transmission fastener can lead to limping '07 Toyota Camry,' Automotive News, May 1^st, 2006 - read article).

In addition, in May 2005, 4,900 Avalons were recalled for an incorrectly-welded steering-wheel column, a defect that could result in loss of control.

It should be noted that 2006 has been a bumper year for Toyota recalls (see list). Toyota does virtually all the design and engineering for its Lexus and Scion brands.

Gradually, one might suggest, the truth is emerging.

Quality is as elusive as truth. Many claim it. Few actually capture it.

Q. Is buying American the answer to the perception gap?

A. In and of itself, no.

Fair trade or not, all is fair in love and cars.

We should also be clear that one cannot but admire Japan for the results of its trade policy, which retains protectionism in the Japanese market while enjoying easy access to America.

However, advocates of the so-called free trade that exists between America and the rest of the world often cite the idea that foreign-car companies are replenishing the jobs lost by an American automotive industry that has suffered in the past thirty years.

It is not a tenable position.

Consider: General Motors; Ford, and DaimlerChrysler account for 4% of the U.S. GDP and 11% of all manufacturing shipments.

Consider: General Motors; Ford, and DaimlerChrysler have made 85% of the total investment in the U.S. automotive industry since 1980.

Consider: General Motors and Ford each have nearly five times as many major American plants as Toyota; Honda, and Nissan combined.

Consider: General Motors; Ford, and DaimlerChrysler build 75% of the cars and trucks that are made in the USA.

Consider: General Motors; Ford, and DaimlerChrysler together employ 90% of the autoworkers in America (that's 400,000 people, directly). Ford alone employs four times the number of Americans as does Honda, one of the largest and longest-operating transplants in the U.S.

Consider: General Motors; Ford, and DaimlerChrysler together affect 7 million jobs in auto and related industries.

Consider: General Motors; Ford, and DaimlerChrysler buy 80% of the auto parts sold in the United States. That's an important statistic, given that automotive suppliers employ nearly three times more Americans than do the automakers.

Consider: General Motors; Ford, and DaimlerChrysler provide health care for 2 million Americans, and pension benefits for 800,000 retirees.

Consider: General Motors alone provides health coverage to 1.1 million employees; retirees, and dependents - more than any other company in the country. By contrast, Honda in America has just 1,700 retirees, and is reported to have expressed dismay at the cost of their health care. One can only imagine General Motors' burden.

Consider: Recent figures place the average domestic content of GM; Ford, and Chrysler/ Dodge/ Jeep at 76%. Contrast with 48% for Japanese automakers; 5.4% for European automakers, and 3% for Korean automakers.

Consider: More than 65,000 Americans work in 215 automotive R&D facilities in Michigan alone, per the Level Field Institute. By contrast, the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) notes that the fourteen Japanese automakers doing business in America employ twenty times fewer that amount: ~3,100 R&D workers at 33 facilities nationwide.

We believe that, since American companies pay more taxes to the U.S. Treasury than foreign companies (because, after all, they are U.S-based), they should expect some cooperation from their own government (much as Japanese automakers - Honda somewhat apart - have ever received from theirs).

We do not propose mercantilist policy. If Buick's products - or General Motors'; Ford's and Chrysler's products, for that matter - are uncompetitive, then let them sink. However, if they suffer more from perception than competence, then we all lose.

We do not propose a peripheral, Buy American campaign. Rather, we urge both the media and consumers to spend as much time and effort as possible to determine the merits - or lack thereof - of what are most peoples' second-largest single purchases.

As Autoline Detroit host John McElroy wrote for Ward's Auto World recently, "Americans should buy whatever brand of car they want; but buying from the Big Three is better for the country.

"For all the value the foreigners have added here, they still don't do their core engineering in the U.S. They don't create platforms here. They don't design the powertrains; drivetrains; chassis, or suspensions. They don't develop the electronic architectures. They don't conduct the crash testing.

"All of this is done in their home countries.

"Meanwhile, it's General Motors; Ford, and Chrysler that are doing the most recruiting at American colleges to fill every kind of job imaginable. They're the ones buying the American-made super computers and hiring the people to program them.

"They're the ones doing the computational fluid dynamics here before they go into their wind tunnels. This is where they do their manufacturing engineering.

"These are the companies with the greatest diversity of employees, supporting the greatest number of communities and adding the most value to the American way of life" ('Buy American,' John McElroy, Ward's Auto World, May 20^th, 2006).

To put it in the simplest of terms, no child grows up wanting to work in the automotive industry so that they might assemble vehicles designed elsewhere.

This was made abundantly clear by CAR's Gavin Green (formerly the magazine's editor) who was alone among Britain's media to articulate the problem of MG-Rover's 2005 collapse.

Through the ordeal, the media had seemed intent on maintaining that national interests had no place in a discussion of the future of automotive production.

"Most of the pundits who pontificated on MG-Rover's final failure implied that, actually, despite MG-Rover's incompetence, it's going fine for UK Motor Industry plc. The Japanese are here! The UK now makes more cars than it did a decade ago," Green wrote in CAR, July 2005.

"Nissan; Honda, and Toyota are the new Austin; Morris, and Rover!

"True, we make them here. But we don't design; engineer, and develop them here. In a neat reversal of 100 years ago, we now provide Asia with low-cost, conveniently located labor.

"They do the high-value; university-educated; creative, and managerial stuff. We build 'em. The only mass maker with a hefty engineering presence left in the UK is Ford.

"Yes, we have loads of companies making cars here, with good productivity and good quality. But none is British-owned. This matters in the car business. A company's home is typically where it sites its senior management; engineers; designers, and key administrators - the important jobs that young people aspire to.

"A company's home is where it will always, even in the face of low-cost Third World options, locate some of its manufacturing.

"A company's home is where it has loyalty; political affiliations; cultural empathy, and key suppliers.

"The disparate US; Japanese, and German-owned car makers which assemble cars in Britain help this country, so thanks very much and the best of British to you. But when the chips are down... they'll be off. And as we've already seen, not even a call from Tony Blair will make any difference" (CAR, July 2005).

Food for thought.

As we've said, and reiterate here: if Buick's products - or General Motors'; Ford's and Chrysler's products, for that matter - are uncompetitive, then let them sink. However, if they suffer more from perception than competence, then we all lose.

Certainly, as you hopefully see given the magnitude of the independent effort put into this site, we believe the latter is true - and we seek to avert it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Q. Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

A. Certainly. Buick is not perfect.

In quality, Buick is superlative. In marketing savvy; perceived value, and pure automotive showmanship, however, more could certainly be done.

GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz's direct involvement in the Buick LaCrosse product development process shows that enthusiasm is alive and well at Buick. Through Lutz's distinguished career, there has been continuity and inventiveness on his side. In his mission to emphasize these characteristics at Buick, he has put himself on the line, and his heart in his cars.

Lutz's input, and his conviction that product design and development compromises should be in the hands of one or two people, is the dream of the automotive enthusiast - and the process that regularly produces the best vehicle.

Consider the remarks of Porsche Chief Engineer Helmuth Bott, with the company since 1952: "one should see in a car the handwriting of the man who decides the compromise" (Porsche Legends, Randy Leffingwell, MBI, 2002).

Every car is a compromise of sorts. That's what makes the idea of a Buick enthusiast possible, versus - for instance - a Cadillac enthusiast or Volkswagen enthusiast. The price-points of these brands intersect, but their compromises are quite different.

"If you have a lot of people with the best knowledge in theoretical things, and you bring all the best components together, it will not be the best car," Bott continues.

"A car is always a compromise, and to decide the right compromise, you should have the feeling in the seat of your pants.

"And you should know how the compromise should be. You cannot get the best handling if you can't compromise the comfort. You cannot get the best surface for the car if you can't perhaps, compromise the ease of entry into the car" (Porsche Legends, Randy Leffingwell, MBI, 2002).

Lutz, better than perhaps anyone, understands the compromises necessary in the automotive business: that elusive balance between art and durable good, an equilibrium which requires brand-specific compromise between design and engineering; between product, and consumer.

"When I got here, if I might criticize the past, product development was delegated at too low a level, especially design," Lutz told Automotive News recently.

"There was insufficient senior management involvement with the product direction.

"We tended to gravitate to always trying to find the scientific methods for everything, including measuring of customer taste and determining what kind of product we should do for one segment, and putting a great deal of faith in quantitative analysis" ('Culture Change,' Automotive News, May 23^rd, 2006).

Shifting the balance is not an easy task. Jaguar Design Director Ian Callum, as celebrated as this man who penned the Aston Martin DB7 might be, told Autocar a few years ago that he would have loved "to have been a songwriter.

"It's creative and expressive and is probably more straightforward than the car industry - who ever asked Paul McCartney to justify his work? Something I have to do daily!" ('20 Questions,' Autocar, December 30^th, 2003).

Occasionally, the idea surfaces that Buick needs to change its fundamental approach. We disagree. The modern Buick is fluid and supple, with accurate steering and chassis that generate respectable cornering forces in a progressive, linear fashion that enables the driver to easily stay within the car's limits - which translates to high average speeds in covering miles. How can one enjoy performance if the car's next move is unpredictable?

Competitors often jitterbug across poor surfaces. Neither comparable Acura nor correspondent Lexus can match Buick's ride quality, an attribute for which the marque has long been known. Of the upstart Hyundai Azera, Autoline Detroit's John McElroy notes, "the impact harshness; the feel of the jounce and rebound, made it feel like it could stand another six weeks at the proving ground to get the benefit of further refinement" (Autoline Detroit, April 30^th, 2006).

When the comfortable car dies, then perhaps Buick might expire, too. As marketing consultants Al and Laura Ries put it, "we can't think of a single brand that has survived the death of its category" (The Origin of Brands, Al & Laura Ries, HarperBusiness, 2004).

Yet the comfortable car is not disappearing any time soon. If anything, competition has strengthened, with now even Hyundai emulating Buick.

The Japanese competition has long been described in Buick terms. Thus, through the advantage of its authenticity and history, one might encourage Buick's people to view themselves as being - potentially - in a similar position to Harley-Davidson. "Without a doubt it is in the motorcycle business that the Japanese met their first Waterloo," authors Denis Duquet; Marc LaChapelle, and Jacques Duval have noted.

"They tried absolutely everything and invested fabulous sums attempting to capture and reproduce the spirit and essence of a Harley-Davidson. But a few years ago, the Japanese must have realized that they would never be able to equal Harley-Davidson on its own turf.

"The American firm, however, is booming, and has never done so well" (The 1994 New Car Report, Duquet, LaChapelle & Duval, Contemporary Books Inc., 1993).

Former Volkswagen Chairman & CEO Dr. Ferdinand Piëch adds, "tradition in the United States gets attention. Think about Harley-Davidson - they do a beautiful job" (Automobile, December 1993).

BMW is one of the strongest brands in the automotive market. BMW achieved its meteoric rise in the U.S. market with the launch of the 2002 in 1968, a watershed for the brand because it represented the exact opposite of what was popular at the time. The 3 series of today, deriving from the principles of the 2002, is BMW's Heartland car, and continues to lead its segment.

Yet analysts have focused on the wrong aspect of this story in suggesting that Buick needs to change who and what it is. There is no need for Buick to become BMW; rather, Buick must remain at the opposing end of the spectrum, catering to those who appreciate a comfort-minded interpretation of luxury.

After all, Motor Trend recently reminisced, "thirty years ago, (we) interviewed an exec from BMW who said his company's goal was to build European Buicks!" ('Buick Velite Concept: the quiet American,' Todd Lassa, Motor Trend, May 2005).

The only aspect of BMW to which Buick needs to pay attention is the idea that there is profit in consistency. This drives BMW - and both BMW and Buick have found that evolution is always far preferable to revolution. We are, after all, dealing with a machine made up of several thousand parts.

Ergonomics; grace; power, and reassurance have long been the cornerstones of the Buick brand. The evidence of this is scattered across this site. For instance, consider that forty years ago, Car Life found that "the strong points for the (Buick) Riviera... are quality of finish and aesthetic appeal and good brakes" (Car Life, February 1966).

Ergonomics; grace; power, and reassurance are the aspects that should drive Buick product development and marketing in the future. Careful craftsmanship; space for six; and low operating costs characterize Buicks, and are key aspects of pride of ownership.

Today's Buick does need more internal pride in what it does. Not arrogance - but confidence: confidence in a heritage of powerful, refined vehicles with a hint of mystery, and of interiors with warmth, and exteriors with class, whose impact never quite overshadows their maturity.

After all, was it not Buick who enticed in 1974, "cars are like people: some seem filled with inhibitions; concessions; compromises... then there's the other kind - the kind that exude charisma; confidence; free spirit?"

Pride has a long history at Buick.

"The only way to secure the highest efficiency out of those we employ is to place responsibility on them; show confidence in them - do this for the man and not the company - and finally encourage and reward pride in accomplishment more than pride in profit," wrote GM founder William C. Durant.

"When I went to Buick as Chief Engineer in 1975, I knew only a handful of people since I'd spent most of my career at the GM Engineering Staff and Chevrolet," recalls former Buick General Manager Lloyd E Reuss, who was instrumental in the evolution of the Buick complex into Buick City (A Place Called Buick, Don Bent, 2005).

"I found that people at The Buick were a closely knit and justifiably proud group of individuals. The approximate ten years that I spent, first as Chief Engineer and then later as Vice President and General Manager of Buick, were some of the most enjoyable years in my career at GM, mainly because of the people."

Confidence in its long, storied heritage has inspired many a magnanimous gesture at Buick - such as gifting buyers of the last, Collector's Edition rear-wheel-drive 1985 Buick LeSabres a booklet on Buick history and a special set of keys, to complement the car's celebratory equipment package.

Buick's task is more complicated because it needs to regain both its revenue and its perceptual leadership. The challenge is to make Buick's traditionalist, mature appeal a parallel to (rather than simply a step down from) Cadillac's postmodernism.

What could revitalized pride do for Buick?

Well, we'd like to see only leather offered in all Buicks, just as it is in the Rainier. We'd like six-passenger configurations to feature leather, just as five-passenger variants do. Upgraded interiors (CXL option, CXS) could offer suede inserts (just as were used to celebrate the 20th Anniversary Buick Riviera for 1983).

Every Buick - like Lucerne - should be available in ten colors. Every Buick - like LaCrosse and Lucerne - needs an ebony interior. The names of interior colors need to change from gray to titanium; from neutral to cashmere.

We'd also like to see Buick advertising feature Buicks in butane blue (with emphasis on the butane). To be sure, it is a peripheral change - but one cannot underestimate the value of the linguistic play on words. Virtually everyone, for instance, associates TR with Triumph. Former Standard-Triumph USA Advertising and Public Relations Manager Michael Cook recalls, "the name became so pervasive that one major corporation, TRW, Inc., ran a national ad campaign announcing, We are not a small British Sports Car!" (Triumph Cars in America, Michael Cook, MBI, 2001)

Lighter-colored vehicles photograph better, too, and illustrate the subtle curvaceousness of the modern Buick's surfacing (one of the key elements in which a Buick LaCrosse, for instance, differs stylistically from a slab-sided Toyota Avalon).

It also recalls the successful Model 10, of almost a hundred years ago. That 1908 Buick featured an off-white Buick gray finish which, modernized, might well equate to butane.

So, Buick, how about a few print ads (and a shot of all five Buicks at the end of each TV spot): The Butane Buicks for 2007?

Every Buick needs to be facelifted more frequently - not to any great degree, but with small, nuanced touches. This distinguishes Buick from brands such as Subaru, which place virtually no emphasis on style. After all, evo staff writer Henry Catchpole wrote of Subaru, "farmers' vehicles don't need to be facelifted... when did you last think, hmm, that combine harvester could do with a touch more emphasis around the grille?" (evo, September 2005).

We also urge a GM study on the potential cost of extending the powertrain warranty on overhead-valve Buicks (LaCrosse CX, CXL 3800; Lucerne CX, CXL 3800) to 10 years/ 100,000 miles. This opens a discussion about the benefits of overhead-valve technology, a configuration that has inaccurately been dubbed antiquated.

We'd like to see all Buicks, going forward, offering a gas strut to prop the hood up.

We'd like to see all Buicks featuring more continuous adjustment to their tilt/ telescoping steering-wheel mechanisms.

We'd like to see all Buicks offer an electronic parking brake. Entry and egress has been an important feature of all Buicks, past and present, and despite the Buick designers' best packaging efforts, it remains too easy to snag one's foot on the parking-brake pedal.

Incentives on Buicks have dropped to levels that now befit a premium brand. No more than a $2,000 incentive is available on any current-model Buick. The stronger that Buick becomes as it resurrects itself, the less that price will be the key to moving the brand.

In rediscovering its confidence, we would encourage Buick to streamline Buick Communications with Buick Engineering, the former highlighting the considerable efforts of the latter. One of the contributors to this site spent time last year speaking to Buick Lucerne Chief Engineer Edward J. Zellner, in a media capacity, at the Chicago Auto Show. The elucidating comments of Mr. Zellner as regard Buick's QuietTuning and comfort-tuned suspensions would be well worth relaying, edited for simplicity and relevance, to the consumer.

That should, of course, be the job of the media. Yet, as we've discussed in defining the perception gap, the media has been intent on peripheral observation (whether they be deriding Buick owners for their age, or extrapolating from skidpad results without explaining what they actually measure). We're often spared dissertations on difficult subjects, such as ride quality.

This poses a problem for Buick (and, one might add, for Jaguar; Lincoln, and Lancia). All four are premium labels, and all seek differentiation within their parent folds. It is to the detriment of all four that their chosen differentiator - comfort, and chassis fluidity - is fairly difficult to quantify; it is easier, perhaps, to place a car on a skidpad and measure lateral grip at a low, fixed speed and steering angle, much though this may have little benefit in (and real detriment to) real-world performance.

Indeed, as Road & Track once admitted, "we don't think we learn a lot about a road car by flogging it around a race course, except perhaps about its lack of suitability for racing" (Road & Track, March 1975).

Any focus on skidpad results (and such) that might obscure more qualitative - yet no less important - criteria might be dubbed, mag-racing. While the maximum grip that a vehicle can generate at a particular speed and steering input, in a steady-state corner, is interesting as an absolute, theoretical measurement, it cannot be used for the purpose of judging a chassis' overall competence. Let us take, as an example, Cadillac's SRX crossover: despite a relatively average 0.77g skidpad rating, Car and Driver recently found that "(skidpad) grip isn't everything, as evidenced by the SRX's second-best emergency-lane-change run," in a four-vehicle comparison test that included Porsche's Cayenne.

In another recent Car and Driver test, the magazine noticed that the Chrysler 300C "herked and jerked its way to a 0.76g performance, the lowest of the group (including the Pontiac Bonneville GXP and Ford Crown Victoria).

"But in the emergency lane change, where a good stability-control system helps rather than hurts, it was fastest by a wide margin... in the real world, the 300C instills cornering confidence with negligible body lean, and steering that scribes precise arcs."

Skidpad figures are, of course, also inflatable with a set of tires; Road & Track, more than thirty years ago, found that "for cornering on a smooth, steady turn, the (Pontiac) Grand Am on its big radials will work up to a pretty decent lateral loading - nearly 0.7g, just below a BMW Bavaria in standard form" ('Pontiac Grand Am,' Road & Track, March 1973).

Yet the '73 Grand Am driver who might, on an unknown road, search the chassis beneath them for the same confidence accorded the BMW pilot would find that "if the corner isn't a steady-radius or smooth one, however, the Grand Am gets dicey - simply because its power steering is almost devoid of any road feel.

"Thus any corrections needed to keep the car on course have to made on an observe-and-try basis rather than on the basis of direct reactions and counteractions at the wheel."

Similarly, the mag-racer would do well to note that, while a 2006 Jeep Commander pulled a 0.70g average lateral acceleration figure in a recent Motor Trend test, the same vehicle averaged just 0.54g on that magazine's figure-8 circuit. Lateral acceleration at real-world speeds and in real-world corners is likely to be lower still.

Such nuances escape mag-racers, however, and - as a corollary - the opinion leaders who provide these numbers have no motivation to explain how they should be used. This is disingenuous, if understandable, in the context of those least enviable of human qualities.

Forgive us, then, if we question the metrics that purport to determine automotive excellence. A vehicle represents the second-largest singular purchase in most consumers' lives, after their house. The consumer cannot expect to be truly informed by counting red and black dots, or by determining that one skidpad figure is higher than another.

Should mag-racing begin driving design and engineering compromises made by manufacturers, we fear for this industry. 'Tis a question of integrity: of having the courage and conviction to do one thing well. Per Automobile Executive Editor Mark Gillies' comments in 2001, it has already begun happening. "This fetish for winning magazine tests has led to a few anomalies, particularly Mercedes-Benz abandoning what it did best - solid, beautifully engineered cars that would run all year at 150mph on the autobahn - to produce more stylish automobiles that drive like BMWs but aren't quite as good and feel cheaper," Gillies mused.

"Blame that on Mercedes wanting to do as well in magazine comparison tests as BMW, and also wanting to attract younger buyers" (Automobile, September 2001).

Whether or not our opinion leaders have had much to do with it, and whether or not you might buy the theory of information flow from opinion leader to consumer, the court of public opinion has swayed into a decidedly perplexing realm.

Memo to Buick Communications: it needs clarification.

Certainly, one need not look back too far into history to recall a time in which engineers were worshipped, and motoring journalism fostered readers' dreams with investigative and educational writing. Yet, more pragmatically, the importance of integrating Buick Communications with Buick Engineering is clear. "People who are good at selling things are not the sort who can explain the dynamic benefits," wrote the late, great LJK Setright - among the few journalists who understood the inherent vi