Now that Buick has been identified as a survivor from the GM meltdown the autoworld is busily trying to decide what makes a Buick and what can be done to make it succeed. GM itself is pointing at the 2010 Buick LaCrosse as an example of where it's headed. If that's true then I don't hold out much hope for the grand old marque. With its bulldog nose and gunslit windows this is not a pretty car. Not that Buick can be entirely blamed for that front end; it was dictated by European (and soon to be American) regulations aimed at reducing injuries when pedestrians are struck by an automobile. Exactly how that works I'm not certain except that it apparently provides a softer "cushion" for said pedestrian before being deposited on the pavement where a worse fate awaits.

In the old Alfred Sloan GM brand hierarchy wherein the prospective buyer (us) would move up a class as our incomes grew, Buick was slotted above Pontiac, below Cadillac. Fair enough, we understood that. Now it's the bridge between Chevrolet and Cadillac, which puts Buick into Lexus and Acura territory. I'm tempted to add BMW but that would be stretching the point. Notwithstanding that Buick is GM's best seller in China, it seems to me that in order to stand apart in the marketplace the brand should be different, not more of the same. It isn't enough to be another Lexus or Acura. The old slogan was "when better cars are built, Buick will build them." That simple philosophy, GM and new marketing guru Bob Lutz, should be your motto. If you're curious, Autoblog offers a first test here.