GM Inside News Forum banner
141 - 160 of 160 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
For those of you unfamiliar with Buick history, the Skylark began as a convertible-only model in the 1950s. Its sold in low volumes for two years. The name was resurrected in the 1960s as compact and then later intermediate.

Of the historical names suggested, including Riviera, Wildcat, etc.; Skylark is the one with some logic and history behind it. ;)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
The "Velite" moniker is a terrible name. As are "Cielo" & "Cascada".
The "Invicta" nameplate should never be used again for a production model.

The "Riviera" moniker would do fine/great.
Those portholes shouldn't be on the car unless it represents a V6/V8 powerplant!!
!!!
Totally disagree. The Riviera nameplate should be reserved for something much more special than this, certainly not a compact. And the Invicta nameplate is a perfect revival for the right Buick vehicle. Are you truly a Buick enthusiast?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
For those of you unfamiliar with Buick history, the Skylark began as a convertible-only model in the 1950s. Its sold in low volumes for two years. The name was resurrected in the 1960s as compact and then later intermediate.

Of the historical names suggested, including Riviera, Wildcat, etc.; Skylark is the one with some logic and history behind it. ;)
very good post. The original Skylark was in '53 and "54 convertible only, very low production numbers. They were as expensive as Cadillacs which is why they did not sell in big numbers making them very collectible. I had a Black '54 a few years ago but sold it. With the old Dynaflow tranny....it was like driving a golf cart, no shifting. The Riviera was always a "personal coupe" except for a few early 80's Rivs. Buick definitely needs this car.....I like the Cascada name.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,308 Posts
in my opinion the venti-ports and the grill RUIN the nose of the car as it was NOT designed as a Buick and I think GM NEEDS a modern forward looking brand and stop dwelling in the past and secondly hopefully ether Buick adopts Opal design cues OR opal/Buick start working together to find ONE design that can be sold as Buick AND Opal
Yes, I'd rather they not keep tacking on the Ventiports, unless they start to actually mean something be it engine size (maybe just output given some have all-four-cylinder lineups) or trim package. Maybe not even then.
That, and don't go heavy on chroming it up in general. The Encore looks much better with the regular 5-spoke alloys shared with the Mokka, rather than the chrome wheels it had in every release photo.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
in my opinion the venti-ports and the grill RUIN the nose of the car as it was NOT designed as a Buick and I think GM NEEDS a modern forward looking brand and stop dwelling in the past and secondly hopefully ether Buick adopts Opal design cues OR opal/Buick start working together to find ONE design that can be sold as Buick AND Opal
I actually like the portholes, their new interpretation and location at the edges of the hood, but your latter suggestion is CRUCIAL! Buick and Opel NEED to consolidate design language the way that Chrysler and Lancia are doing. Perhaps Opel wouldn't be losing so much money if they weren't JUST trying to sell cars in Europe, a relatively small, now economically depressed market. If their cars were designed FROM THE BEGINNING to be sold as Opels AND Buicks, in Europe, North America, China, etc., it would be better for them.

As for the Cascada, if GM does not sell this car in North America as a Buick, they deserve to go bankrupt. $33,000 for this car seems like a reasonable price, but FULLY LOADED. I test drove a base Verano in January, and the rep told me that model, which was loaded with satellite navigation and other goodies, came out to $30,000. I would expect a convertible to be a wee bit more. Would I buy one? It's a nice car, but I'm not really into convertibles. They are nice for renting on sunny vacations, but I wouldn't own one. I would prefer a sporty hatchback like the GTC, but we know GM won't make that happen anytime soon...

A lot of comparisons here have been made to the Camaro Convertible. The Cascada is smaller, lighter, and presumably will get much better mileage. It seems more like a "chick car," but aren't women driving many of the American auto industry trends today?

Obviously, the Cascada wouldn't sell in Toyota Camry blockbuster numbers, but is this now the criteria for ANY vehicle being sold in North America?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,261 Posts
Hell, yeah I'd buy it in a heartbeat or $33K USD! When I trade in my '12 Regal Premium II at the end of the lease, I hope Buick has the Cascada convertible (Verano?) ready to purchase. Otherwise, it'll be a '15 Camaro 2LS convertible for me...
You have a great plan. The discounts should be quite large At that time on the 5th gen camaro convertible and it will always be in style.

If this little four seat bucks held up in Europe.

Ps...this invicta is hot!


 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,771 Posts
Someone mentioned Opel and Buick sharing a more common design language. This Insignia Concept does just that. Personally, I fear GM banking Buick too strongly on Opel. The truth is unfortunate, they are bleeding.


The 2003 Insignia concept car was designed as a replacement of the Opel Signum, a upscale 5-door hatchback version of the Opel Vectra. The real Insignia concept was the 2007 GTC Concept car.





And that's the 2010 incarnation.



 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
I do think GM should have room in their lineup -somewhere - for a comfortable, rationally priced, family-friendly convertible. I did give some consideration to the Cavalier convertible in 1992, but couldn't abide parting with my money for the old J-body platform and bought a Mazda Protege instead.

If there was a Cruze or Malibu coupe, we could press for this. But, alas...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,308 Posts
I do think GM should have room in their lineup -somewhere - for a comfortable, rationally priced, family-friendly convertible. I did give some consideration to the Cavalier convertible in 1992, but couldn't abide parting with my money for the old J-body platform and bought a Mazda Protege instead.

If there was a Cruze or Malibu coupe, we could press for this. But, alas...
Don't necessarily need a coupe first to do a convertible. The Chrysler Sebring convertible was always based off the Cirrus/Sebring sedan while the Sebring coupe, when they had one, was based off a Mitsubishi platform. (Though the coupe went away when the Sebring/200 sedan/vert began sharing a platform with Mitsubishi.)

While we're wondering out loud - the Malibu's Camaro-look rear end might make look pretty decent with the top down. Go for a soft-top though, instead of a folding hardtop as the G6...
But that would be sort of a workaround for the rear legroom too - add extra headroom instead. :D
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
12,258 Posts
Agree with above, a "Skylark" convertible might be just the ticket for Buick to add a point of differentiation
without impinging on Cadillac ATS and IMO a much better plan that using a Camaro on Zeta or Alpha.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,951 Posts


I don't see the Cascada as a suitable replacement
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
38,057 Posts
very equivalent to the G6 Convertible ... Buick needs this asap because all those Pontiac G6's are about to be traded in ... most will go else where, however if Buick has this it really prevents all those G6 owners going to other companies.
Indeed. A convertible starting around 25-27 grand and going on up to perhaps 35-37 grand would cover a lot of ground, including your G6 clientele. It would be a shame to lose them.

As to the OP question, NO I would not buy a 33 grand Buick--or anything--convertible. But as a tactical move to firm up the lineup, it looks good.
 
141 - 160 of 160 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top