The all-new, 2017 Buick LaCrosse will be offered in 11 exterior colors in North America, according to the brand’s recently-updated landing page for the new full-size sedan. The colors include two no-charge hues, and nine premium, extra-charge colors:
No-Charge Colors
- Black Onyx
- Summit White
Premium, Extra-Charge Colors
- Dark Cherry Metallic (limited edition color)
- Ebony Twilight Metallic
- White Frost Tricoat
- Graphite Gray Metallic
- Dark Sapphire Metallic
- Quicksilver Metallic
- Dark Forest Green Metallic
- Pepperdust Metallic
- Crimson Red Tintcoat
What are your thoughts on the color lineup of the 2017 LaCrosse? Talk to us in the comments.
Comments
There’s only 11 here and on Buick’s website: http://www.buick.com/2017-lacrosse-full-size-luxury-sedan.html,
unless you’re counting “free” as a color.
Noted and fixed. Somehow “free” became a color. Thank you Jason.
Why only 2 “free” colors? Just another $$$ move!
Because Buick is a premium/luxury brand. Want the most value/bang for your buck? Then look no further than Chevy.
I feel that it should be just the opposite here, a premium brand should include things that are extra cost on mass market brands (that’s what makes it premium) …especially when many of them are the EXACT same colors offered on the Chevy. I just don’t see how it is justifiable to charge extra for silver or dark blue metallic when the same colors are not an upcharge on, say a Chevy Sonic which costs half as much as a Lacrosse. If Buick (and Cadillac and GMC) are going to charge extra for colors now, then they NEED to be special and different, colors that are exclusive or truly premium (tricoat/firemist)
If they are the premium/ Luxury brand the shouldn’t be an extra cost for color choices. The cost should be factored in the cost and all colors should be top notch.
Buick ( GM) needs some new colors . The Dark Cherry Red and the Green look interesting. I will look forward to seeing them. Would someone tell me what the colour Free is? Only two no charge colors. This is a hard pill to swallow. I agree with Bruce.
This appears to be mirroring a tactic of the German crowd; offering only a very few “standard” colors and then charging extra for anything that’s not white or black. I like white, so it’s no skin off of my nose.
This reminds me of how the old Model T came in any color as long as it was black! That lack of variety cost Ford market share and allowed for the General to gain market share.
I find the additional charge tacky, and counterproductive for a brand trying to gain market share. Buick needs to find tiny ways to undercut the Germans and Japanese and options like paint are a fantastic way to garner good will.
Nothing like turning around and biting your own butt. I find this tactic down right cheesy and irritating. They should be trying to draw in new customers not pissing them off. To me it is a counter productive tactic.
How is it cheesy or irritating? How does it detract from “drawing in new customers” and how does it “piss them off”?
I recommend we take a different thinking/approach here: in the past, all colors would be free (included in the price of the vehicle, rather than itemized out). However, a few of them — the non-metallic ones, mostly — were actually less costly to produce than others. Even so, Buick charged the same for them as it did for the metallic hues.
Fast forward to today: automakers are offering more premium (metallic) colors that actually do cost more to produce. They offer the ones that cost less to product for free, and then pass on the cost (with some margin added on) for the premium/metallic ones to those customers who see value in such colors. It’s analogous to opting for an uplevel/optional engine over the base engine. Don’t want the optional engine? That’s ok. There’s always the base.
I should note that this practice has been standard for most premium/luxury automakers and brands. Buick is not the exception in doing this, it’s just late to the party. Look at Chevy, and there are only a handful of premium/extra-cost colors on each vehicle.
The issue here is that most of these aren’t new “more premium” colors, they are the same colors that have been included in the price for years. My thought has always been that it is stupid to pay extra for a color, and I have special ordered a car in a different shade of red to avoid paying extra for the tintcoat shade of red that the dealer was trying to get me to purchase. Now, the table is turned so that there are only one or two colors that don’t cost extra (that’s the irritating part). Ordering an optional engine gives something of value in increased performance, and usually increased resale at trade in time. An extra cost color will not increase the value of a trade in. Comparing Buick to the Germans is like trying to compare apples to oranges, as that’s Cadillac’s territory anyway. Lincoln is not charging extra for colors (except for the traditional few), and I just checked the Lexus website, and it appears that there are NO extra cost colors at all on the ES, they are all included.
Wouldn’t Buick’s closest analogous competitor be volvo?
They only offer two “free” coats of paint and the rest of the metallics are extra.
I totally agree with you. For several years I have observed that the error detail GM is offering the same paint schemes for all their cars. I have seen over the last decade some red that look great. I think it’s important that brands have different shades of paint to look more attractive. However I think that neither GM nor other automakers have no real interest in selling exclusive colors. They see it as a business to quickly sell the car and dealers offer only black, white, silver gray and mostly neutral tones. This influence of the colors of the iPad, iPhones and Smartphones has invaded and dominated everyone, not only in the auto industry, but also in real estate. Car colors that were seen in the 90 mostly they were all different and unique. Now everything looks the same and boredom, limbo has controlled the world.
I don’t like green or black, but the car looks good in all 11 colors !!!
I should add that I like that the Buick is offered in Summit white (non-metallic) I wish Cadillac would do the same.
I love the Dark Cherry Metallic, that is the one I want! Hoping it is available with the black/brandy interior color. I’m wondering what is limited about it, and why?
Yay, to offering two free colors though, wait that’s still not a good thing …no reason anything here should cost extra besides Crimson Red Tricoat, and White Frost Tricoat. It should be noted that the Malibu comes in the same Dark Cherry color (G7T, also known as Butte Red) I desire, and is not an extra cost over at Chevy, what gives? I’d really love to see the Lacrosse in a silvery teal/green color or a silvery ice blue (something with a lot of sparkle, otherwise a light blue runs the risk of looking too old manish)
Yup.
I saw the car at the LA Auto Show and the gray car with the deep red (“Brandy”) interior knocked my socks off. I would choose that first and possible the Pepperdust second. The car has great lines and the design just seems to “flow.” Overall, a tasteful, balanced design. I am anxious to see how it handles.
BMW 5 series charges $550 – $595 for a metallic and $3600 for a special special color.
Only white and black are included in the base price.
Similar at Buick except the less premium LaCrosse charges $395 for a metallic and $995 for the tricoat.
If you’re buying the new lacrosse and can afford it, the $395-$995 should be like pulling lose change from your pockets. This isn’t a car that should allow you to be concerned with something as meaningless as the tricoat and metallic up charge. Everyone just wants something for nothing. Tricoat isn’t a rattle can paint job. It deserves an extra charge for the extra supplies and time it takes to perfect the coats. Go buy a civic if your worried about manufacturers charging for colors cuz that sounds like a car that fits your budget and needs.
I’ll be getting the Dark Forest Green Metallic or Dark Sapphire Metallic. Graphite Gray Metallic is my third choice.
When did people become so afraid of color on automobiles? It wasn’t that long ago that you could choose from twenty or more options. Yes, there are a couple of actual colors here, a red, a blue, a green. The rest is a continuation of monochromatics: black, white, grey, silver. Maybe they should just prime everything and supply vouchers for a first-rate paint job at your body shop of choice.
2017 lacrosse is an absolutely stunning vehicle. And the added colors only make it that much more attractive. I especially can’t wait to see the dark cherry and crimson red on the lacrosse. Buick has hit a HOMERUN with this new redesign! If I was a richer man I would be at a Buick store the day they landed!
I work for a GM dealership. Wake up. We are sick of selling their
“50 shades of grey”. There really are other colors out there besides blue-grey, dark-grey, green-grey , light grey, medium grey, really dark grey–also known as black and black with grey-fleck, there is brown gray and for you rebels they do have blue, and red.
A little forward thinking and some nice rich new colors would be appreciated.
Why all dark colors. Two white selections do not get it. A lighter green metallic such as a granny smith apple color would be nice.
I am in the process of ordering a 2017 Buick Lacrosse and at my dealer they have no indication that black cherry color is available. Can someone tell me if this color will actually be available?
I’m still waiting for the Dark cherry color with the Brandy interior!