For those who miss the Chrysler convertibles......a new Buick?

[mmcartalk]

I know that the (former) Chrysler Lebaron/Sebring/200 convertibles probably don't (and didn't) rank very high on the Lexus Enthusiast list of favorite cars, though they did provide a reasonable amount of interior and back seat space (by 2-door convertible standards) and sold at an affordable price for a convertible that size. If little else, they did provide some fun in the sun for four normal-sized adults....something a lot of other convertibles can't say. The Mitsubishi Eclipse, Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, and similar sports-oriented convertibles, though fun in a different way, weren't real competitors to the Chrysler because their Munchkin-sized back seats were just for packages or children. The also-discontinued Pontiac G6 folding hard-top convertible did provide a reasonably-priced competitor for a few years, but it did not sell well. Like the Chrysler, build quality and reliability were mediocre, and the G6 was not as well-executed, with cheap materials and an (IMO) awful, pitch-black interior that could have passed for the inside of a coal mine.

Both of those convertibles, of course, are now gone (along with the Pontiac nameplate itself), with Chrysler, on the latest (otherwise quite impressive) new 200 redesign, having dropped the ragtop. (I did a new 200 sedan review last year, but it's not posted here). But, on the horizon, here in the American market, is an interesting new convertible from Buick coming up.....the Cascada.

http://www.buick.com/cascada-luxury-convertible.html

The Cascada is derived from the same German-designed Opel Astra platform as the Verano sedan (I know that platform and the Verano well...I've owned one for three years, and it's been an excellent car). In Europe, it is marketed as the Opel/Vauxhall Cascada, Opel Cabrio, and, in Australia/New Zealand, the Holden Cascada. The Cascada's dash and console is very similar to the Verano's, though it is slightly smaller than the Chrysler convertible, and does not appear to have quite as roomy a back seat. And I hope they offer other color schemes inside as an option inside besides just the all-black interior in the picture (that was something, of course, that I criticized the Pontiac G6, for, above). The Opel version does offer other interior colors. And...will it sell as a Buick without the traditional Buick portholes in the fenders LOL?

The American-market Cascada will have FWD, a 1.6L turbo four of 200 HP and 206 ft-lbs. of torque, 20-inch wheels, and a 6-speed automatic. (I myself would prefer a larger N/A power plant, smaller wheels, and higher-profile tires). Buick has not formally announced pricing, but it is expected to sell in about the same price range as the former Chrysler ragtop...adjusted for inflation. Availability in the U.S. market should be spring of 2016.

 

[IS-SV]

Initial pics look pretty good for a GM convertible and certainly a good way to add something interesting to Buick's product line

I'm not sure I see the similarity to crappy rental Chryslers, and that's a good thing. This new Buick is quite unique and should stand on its own merits. Those expecting a back seat significantly bigger than popular 2016 Mustang convertible will probably be disappointed (other than driveline hump difference). I'm one of a minority here that will applaud Buicks choice of insulated cloth top, because it usually results in a more stylish car with lower CG, even if not as practical as retractable hardtop. Most convertible owners have a garage and a second practical car too. I've owned a few convertibles so I know a bit about the drill.

That bulky and outdated center section of steering wheel and much of that dash needs more (re)work. Do I see visual hints of pop up rollbars for rollerover protection? That should be a requirement, at least for knowledgeable safety-oriented buyers.

 

[mmcartalk]

Initial pics look pretty good for a GM convertible and certainly a good way to add something interesting to Buick's product line

There's been some talk of another Riviera, but nothing seems to have come of it. The Avenir concept shows that a new true flagship is planned, probably on the Cadillac CT6's platform.

I'm not sure I see the similarity to crappy rental Chryslers, and that's a good thing.

The Chryslers were were indeed somewhat crappy in build quality and materials...I won't argue with that. (the new 200 is much improved). But the convertibles were popular, roomy inside by ragtop standards, and moderately priced. They were purchased mostly by people who liked them for their good points, and probably weren't too concerned if there were some rattles/squeaks in the structure or if the body flexed (which Chrysler-designed convertibles did for decades). I made a (rough) comparison to the Cascada, not necessarily because of build-quality (judging by the also Opel-derived Verano and Regal, the Cascada is likely to have far better build-quality than the former Chryslers)...but because the Cascada, despite being a little smaller and with a little smaller rear seat, is likely to take the same place in the market as the Chryslers did....an affordable, reasonably spacious convertible from an upmarket (but less than full-luxury-class) American automaker.

This new Buick is quite unique and should stand on its own merits. Those expecting a back seat significantly bigger than popular 2016 Mustang convertible will probably be disappointed (other than driveline hump difference).

Can't say for sure...I've sat inside the latest Mustang, but, of course, not the Cascada itself. In pictures, it looks a little roomier than a typical Mustang pony car convertible rear seat......but pictures don't always tell the full story, and it doesn't look quite a spacious as that of the former Chrysler.

I'm one of a minority here that will applaud Buicks choice of insulated cloth top, because it usually results in a more stylish car with lower CG, even if not as practical as retractable hardtop. Most convertible owners have a garage and a second practical car too. I've owned a few convertibles so I know a bit about the drill.

I'll applaud with you, but given Buick's marketing image and its emphasis on Quiet Tuning, a top that is at least reasonably well-insulated would be pretty much a given.

Do I see visual hints of pop up rollbars for rollerover protection? That should be a requirement, at least for knowledgeable safety-oriented buyers.

Yep. Pop-up, G-force-induced bars. Automakers can't certify a convertible in the American market without meeting Federal convertible rollover standards. The pop-up bars add to style and clean-looking design, but, of course, add to complexity and production costs compared to fixed-bars. I'm not sure (don't remember exactly).....but I think that the pop-up bars were first used and perfected on Porsche convertibles.

 

[IS-SV]

Yep. Pop-up, G-force-induced bars. Automakers can't certify a convertible in the American market without meeting Federal convertible rollover standards. The pop-up bars add to style and clean-looking design, but, of course, add to complexity and production costs compared to fixed-bars.

. Yes, other sources confirm active rollover protection in this new Buick convertible.

. Incorrect, automakers can certify a convertible in American market without meeting same federal rollover standards as a coupe/sedan, because convertibles are exempt from those specific regulations.

 

[mmcartalk]

. Yes, other sources confirm active rollover protection in this new Buick convertible.

. Incorrect, automakers can certify a convertible in American market without meeting same federal rollover standards as a coupe/sedan, because convertibles are exempt from those specific regulations.

That's basically what I meant. Convertible standards are not the same as a sedan or SUV, but automakers have to meet whatever ones exist. I personally wouldn't buy a convertible without some kind of additional protection behind the already-stiffened windshield pillars, especially considering that I'm tall and heavy, and my head sticks up. Of course, the best protection, IMO, is to drive in a manner that will minimize the chances of a rollover in the first place...but that's not always possible if a tire blows, something breaks in the underpinnings, or if you have to make a sudden swerve to avoid something. VSC, of course, helps.

 

[IS-SV]

wa

That's basically what I meant. Convertible standards are not the same as a sedan or SUV, but automakers have to meet whatever ones exist. I personally wouldn't buy a convertible without some kind of additional protection behind the already-stiffened windshield pillars, especially considering that I'm tall and heavy, and my head sticks up. Of course, the best protection, IMO, is to drive in a manner that will minimize the chances of a rollover in the first place...but that's not always possible if a tire blows, something breaks in the underpinnings, or if you have to make a sudden swerve to avoid something. VSC, of course, helps.

Exactly why I corrected the original statement, because I've seen this error before. It's real simple: Convertibles are EXEMPT from federal rollover standards. No need for backpedaling/waffling and excuses after stating " Automakers can't certify a convertible in the American market without meeting Federal convertible rollover standards". Keeping facts straight here is important because people will query/search this high quality forum expecting accurate facts beyond the usual internet hearsay. There are no rollover standards for convertibles. All that other stuff you wrote above is very obvious, although I do agree about personally requiring a convertible with rollover protection. btw - I am guessing you never owned a modern convertible.

Nice to see this Buick has taken the high road for safety, going beyond what the federal law requires for rollover/passenger safety here, via active rollover protection system.

 

[mmcartalk]

wa

Exactly why I corrected the original statement, because I've seen this error before. It's real simple: Convertibles are EXEMPT from federal rollover standards. No need for backpedaling/waffling and excuses after stating " Automakers can't certify a convertible in the American market without meeting Federal convertible rollover standards". Keeping facts straight here is important because people will query this forum expecting accurate facts. There are no rollover standards for convertibles. All that other stuff you wrote above is obvious, although I do agree about personally requiring a convertible with rollover protection. btw - I am guessing you never owned a modern convertible.

Nice to see this Buick has taken the high road for safety, going beyond what the federal law requires here.

Since it's facts you want, though, remember that Opel designed most of it and its safety features, not Buick per se. It's already been on sale in Europe and Australia/New Zealand. Buick, of course, will benefit from its Opel design...just like they did with the Verano and Regal, although the Regal's sales numbers haven't been high enough to really call it a success.

As far as going beyond Federal law, the very nature of our litigious society today (another fact) and over-zealous lawyers sometimes makes things like that feasible. That's why some manufacturers, at first, put more air bags into their vehicles than was Federally required at the time.

 

[IS-SV]

r

Since it's facts you want, though, remember that Opel designed most of it and its safety features, not Buick per se. It's already been on sale in Europe and Australia/New Zealand. Buick, of course, will benefit from its Opel design...just like they did with the Verano and Regal, although the Regal's sales numbers haven't been high enough to really call it a success.

As far as going beyond Federal law, the very nature of our litigious society today (another fact) and over-zealous lawyers sometimes makes things like that feasible. That's why some manufacturers, at first, put more air bags into their vehicles than was Federally required at the time.

Who cares what I want (not important), no need to keep piling it on regarding federal law (i.e. your theory on why we have more airbags, lol) if not related. I didn't ask for more facts, just correct facts. Please stop waffling (after backpedaling) around the point, no need thanks.. The correction was noted, no big deal.

More on topic, I think Buick has a shot at a winner with this international convertible. Sure none of the successful convertibles today are high volume models, but this should sell in reasonable numbers by todays standards.

 

[mmcartalk]

Here's a fairly quick, but interesting static (no test-drive) review from cars.com. I couldn't find any video-reviews yet of actual test-drives.


And here's one showing how the insulated top was tested in a water-spray compartment for effectiveness:

 

[IS-SV]

Nice vid (1st one above), really shows off the soft top and generous trunk space even with top down (especially with rear seats folded down).

3800+ pounds and the 200hp turbo4 is a bit underpowered, any mention of optional engine? But probably not a big deal in this category of "casual convertible" where performance expectations are not high.

 

[mmcartalk]

Nice vid (1st one above), really shows off the soft top and generous trunk space even with top down (especially with rear seats folded down).

Yes, if good enough engineers put their minds to it, it is possible, on a front-engined convertible, to have both an effective top raising/lowering mechanism AND a reasonably spacious trunk for luggage with the top down. The Mazda Miata soft-top, for several generations, proved that....and, of course, the Cascada accomplishes it with a power-top. With mid-engined convertibles, though (like the 3Gen Toyota MR2), the engine gets partially in the way, though you sometimes have at least a very small forward trunk up front to compensate.

What I wonder, sometimes, is how the engineers can design a system that can be raised or lowered at speeds (in this particular case) up to 31 MPH without the wind causing damage to the top or mechanism. It would seem to me that the slower you go, the less stress you put on it. (when I review a full-convertible, I usually do it fully-stopped even if the specs says you can still be moving...that way I know I can return the car without damage, and it compensates if the car is pointed into the wind itself when you are stopped and raising/lowering)

3800+ pounds and the 200hp turbo4 is a bit underpowered, any mention of optional engine? But probably not a big deal in this category of "casual convertible" where performance expectations are not high.

I agree it may (?) be underpowered from a sport-oriented perspective. Opel-designed products, in general, tend to be heavy simply from the way they do the frame and basic structure...plus, of course, extra convertible bracing and sound insulation just adds to it. The weight, though (all else equal), can, in some cases, add to stability and a smooth ride. I don't see any mention at the moment of an optional engine in the U.S. market, but it is still almost a year from the car's debut, and there may (?) still be time for another EPA power-plant certification in this car if GM decides to go that route. The 6-speed transmission helps some compared to older 4 and 5-speed units (which may not be saying much) , but in general, Buick transmissions are programmed (at least on upshifts) to slip and soft-shift for comfort rather than performance-oriented quick, firm shifts. We'll see how the existing powertrain works out, though, when reviewers actually start test-driving it. Like you. though, I'm a little skeptical, based on what I found with the 3200-lb. Encore and its puny 1.4L turbo 138 HP power plant.

 

[IS-SV]

Yes, if good enough engineers put their minds to it, it is possible, on a front-engined convertible, to have both an effective top raising/lowering mechanism AND a reasonably spacious trunk for luggage with the top down. The Mazda Miata soft-top, for several generations, proved that....and, of course, the Cascada accomplishes it with a power-top. With mid-engined convertibles, though (like the 3Gen Toyota MR2), the engine gets partially in the way, though you sometimes have at least a very small forward trunk up front to compensate.

What I wonder, sometimes, is how the engineers can design a system that can be raised or lowered at speeds (in this particular case) up to 31 MPH without the wind causing damage to the top or mechanism. It would seem to me that the slower you go, the less stress you put on it. (when I review a full-convertible, I usually do it fully-stopped even if the specs says you can still be moving...that way I know I can return the car without damage, and it compensates if the car is pointed into the wind itself when you are stopped and raising/lowering)

.

The soft top is key to both the sleek body design and usable/roomy trunk configuration. Although I expect some (or a lot) to desire a more practical retractable hardtop, the styling alone would be affected negatively by hard roof. Most higher-end 4 seater convertibles have soft tops accordingly.

Today it's common for convertible top mechanisms to operate at slow speeds. Instead of old simple parking brake switches to prevent operation at any speed, new speed-governed switches allow operation well below system/mechanism limits and prevent dangerous operation at speed.

 

[Och]

Look horrible inside and out. There are going to be a few very weird individuals who will buy these.

 

[mmcartalk]

Look horrible inside and out. There are going to be a few very weird individuals who will buy these.

Buick expects (or is at least hoping) to sell 10,000 in the first year.

 

[IS-SV]

Buick expects (or is at least hoping) to sell 10,000 in the first year.

Seems like achievable forecast, because significant and above average portion of sales will go into rental car fleets. Unfortunately that's not especially good for GM's margins and consumer resale/residual values.

 

[CIF]

A more appealing product than most of Acura's lineup. It's incredible that I personally find Buick's lineup more appealing than Acura's.

 

[mmcartalk]

A more appealing product than most of Acura's lineup. It's incredible that I personally find Buick's lineup more appealing than Acura's.

There was talk of another Buick Grand National, based on Chevy's SS sedan, but I guess GM's decision to move away from Holden products in the future put the brakes on that. The Holden-based GTO and G8, though, just didn't sell.

 

[mmcartalk]

Here's an interesting write-up. The author discusses its possible market and compares it not only to the old Chrysler convertibles, but also the A3 convertible.

http://www.carscoops.com/2015/01/who-is-going-to-buy-buick-cascada.html

The 2016 Buick Cascada may look familiar to Europeans, but it's something the American brand hasn't seen in a long time: a halo car (of sorts).

And what a pretty halo it is. Aside from the 20-inch wheels that I'm not particularly fond of, the transition from Opel to Buick didn't change a whole lot, and that's for the better. At a time when cars look angry for the sake of being sporty, the relaxed look of the Cascada is somewhat refreshing. It's a nice car. Does anyone still buy nice cars?

In Europe, Opel targets the Audi A5 Convertible as its prime competition, but in the U.S., it's likely Buick dealers will target people looking at an Audi A3 Convertible. By extension, they should include the similarly sized and priced BMW 228i Convertible. Both of those cars offer optional all-wheel drive, so that means the Cascada will be a non-starter for New Englanders looking for a year-round car.

Buick can't expect to charge quite as much as the A3's $35,600 starting price, even if it offers more standard horsepower and equipment – the lure of the four rings is inexplicably strong. But the A3 also has a different personality. It's more modern-looking car in a clean-cut, professional way. It's for people who look good all of the time, or at least insist on making an effort before being seen in public. That's just not every convertible buyer.

The Cascada shouldn't be quite that demanding of its owners. It's a car for people who want to lower the top and drive a convertible in a relaxed way. It doesn't matter it has "only" 200 horsepower, all it needs is to be comfortable going 37 mph.

The Cascada isn't for people who buy Mustang or Camaro convertibles, even V6 ones. Those imply sportiness. The Cascada does fall into a space the old Chrysler Sebring and 200 convertibles used to occupy, although without the same Florida rental special implications. For most of the enthusiasts reading this, the Cascada will be too slow or too laid back or too... nice.

Sorry, but when I look at this car that's the first word that keeps coming to mind. And nice is by no means bad.

 

[Tragic Bronson]

As long as Enterprise/Avis/National/Hertz buy them, the Cascada will stay a worthy business case.

 

[mmcartalk]

As long as Enterprise/Avis/National/Hertz buy them, the Cascada will stay a worthy business case.

Well, Buick is targeting (or hoping for) 10,000 sales in the first year...that will probably include more than just rentals. I myself don't believe in automotive stereotypes, but I have noticed that small (or smallish) convertibles tend to be popular with females....not a stereotype, just a popularity contest.