Buick LaCrosse deliveries in the United States totaled 1,307 units in January 2017, a decrease of 67.8 percent compared to 1,307 units sold in January 2016.
Sales Numbers - Buick LaCrosse - January 2017 - United States
| MODEL | JAN 17 / JAN 16 | JANUARY 17 | JANUARY 16 |
|---|---|---|---|
| LACROSSE | -67.78% | 1,307 | 4,057 |
In Canada, the LaCrosse recorded 40 deliveries in January 2017, an increase of 11 percent compared to January 2016.
Sales Numbers - Buick LaCrosse - January 2017 - Canada
| MODEL | JAN 17 / JAN 16 | JANUARY 17 | JANUARY 16 |
|---|---|---|---|
| LACROSSE | +11.11% | 40 | 36 |
The GM Authority Take
Given that the launch of the all-new 2017 LaCrosse is now complete, we are left with pointing to a shift in consumer behavior in vehicle purchases as the primary reason for the model’s sales decline in January. Specifically, consumers are now favoring crossover utility vehicles (CUVs) at the expense of sedans such as the LaCrosse.
Whether this trend is permanent or temporary is anyone’s guess at this point, but downcast LaCrosse sales will likely continue well into the future as long as crossovers are all the rage.
Related News & Info
Related Sales Reporting
- Running GM sales results
- Running Buick sales results
- Running Buick LaCrosse sales results
- Running Chevrolet sales results
- Running Cadillac sales results
- Running GMC sales results
- Running Buick sales results
- January 2017 GM sales results
- U.S. January 2017 GM sales results
- January 2017Â Chevrolet sales results
- January 2017Â Cadillac sales results
- January 2017Â Buick sales results
- January 2017 GMC sales results
- January 2017Â GM China sales results
- January 2017 GM Canada sales results
- Global January 2017Â Cadillac sales results
- U.S. January 2017 GM sales results
Reporting by Francisco (Frankie) Cruz. GM Authority Take analysis by Alex Luft.
Comments
Buick turned the LaCrosse back into an old man’s car. Look at it. It looks like the LaCrosse and Lucerne from almost 10 years ago which were old man cars. Buick, you dropped the ball.
Probably explains why, if you look closely, the meter has expired.
So True it really does look like the older Buick from 10 years ago… It looks to much like a granny car to me.. I would definitely go for the 2016 Version more of a modern look…
Granted sedans are not in high favor right now, but someone at Buick must be connecting the dots when you look at the excitement the Avenir and Avista created. Put Avenir and/or Avista in production as your flagship sedan and move forward!
As exciting as the Avenir and Avista were, it is extremely difficult to make a business case for either. If produced, both would sell a combined 500-1,000 units a month… not more. Meanwhile, the case for the LaCrosse is already made, even at these low volumes.
To illustrate the difficulty, just think about the space that a proposed Avenir or Avista would compete in. There is a reason why nobody (literally, nobody) is competing in this space. The closest were the Hyundai Equus as well as the Hyundai Genesis Sedan and Coupe. The Equus and Genesis Sedan have been discontinued and moved to a separate luxury brand… the coupe has been discontinued entirely. It will take Hyundai decades and billions of dollars to invest in and build up the Genesis brand, so it’s willing to take a loss on those vehicles if/until it catches on. The same does not ring true for Buick — it must be a profit driver.
Now, there is an argument to be made of putting the Avenir on Omega and Avista on Alpha shared with the gen six Camaro. That would be an interesting proposition and one that I think could take place. But given the market’s hunger for crossovers, the more prudent decision would be to make several crossover variants off the Omega architecture first, before worrying about bringing Avenir or Avista to production.
Avista on Alpha would be a money maker.
It would appeal to import and domestic buyers, as the styling is a home run.
It would also sell well to people who considered a Camaro, but:
* Wanted something more luxury oriented.
* Wanted something with a usable back seat.
* Just don’t want to be caught driving a Camaro. (I personally love the Camaro, but no matter how great it is, we have to admit there are certain people with a bias that would never consider it, on name alone.)
Cascada is selling at 500-1000 units per month. Avista would do 1000-1500 per month.
Well, I will say that you’re really stretching all that with a significant amount of assumptions and zero market data. So I think it’s important to recognize that, rather than accept it as fact.
I believe that 1,000-1,500 monthly deliveries of a vehicle like the Avista is way too high for two reasons:
1. It’s already a very small subsegment of the market, and
2. This sub-segment is already being served by compact luxury coupes like the ATS Coupe, BMW 4 Series Coupe, MB C-Class Coupe, Infiniti Q60, and Audi A5/S5 Coupe.
Now, one could make a case that a vehicle like the Avista could healthily co-exist with those vehicles by occupying a lower price point. However, the Camaro is already at that lower price point. That said, your argument that some people don’t want a Camaro based on name alone (or perhaps the styling) is valid.
Truth is that if this level of sales volume was available today from the segment we are discussing, then GM would have already been all over it. The reason that the Avista doesn’t already exist in production form is that they clearly don’t see those figures. Having worked at GM on the corporate side, let me tell you — the entire organization is driven by hard data and analytics.
But for the sake of this conversation, let’s assume that there is a market of 1,000-1,500 units of the Avista. The problem is that that is it! The Chinese are not into Coupes, the Aussies have written them off altogether, and GM is (at least for the time being) pulling out of Europe. In that regard, it’s important to recognize the contrast with the Cascada.
All the work, engineering, and investment for the Cascada was done in Europe for Europe. The business case was made for it there and there alone. The decision to then export it to the U.S. as a Buick is pure bonus volume for Buick, GM and for the Gliwice plant in Poland where it is made. So, the breakeven/recoup point for bringing the Cascada to the U.S. is extremely low… and anything higher than that already-low point is pure profit. The same can not be said of the vehicle we’re referring to here as the Avista. It would have to live and die by North American performance, which currently isn’t exactly friendly towards coupes or sedans (but more so, crossovers).
Some good points, thank you.
The Cascada only sold 4,279 copies in Europe last year. So if GM analyzed the figures and determined it could make money with such a low volume, then they certainly could turn a profit taking an Alpha and giving it a Buick treatment. (GM stated that the Cascada was designed to be sold in the USA from the inception of its engineering work, so even if their spreadsheets didn’t depend on USA sales to justify it, you know it was in the back of the planners minds. And now Cascada in the USA outsells Cascada in Europe.)
I think even you’d concede the Avista would sell more than 4,279 units a year. It was last year’s Concept Car of the Year for a reason, it is absolutely stunning in person.
If they could justify building a convertible from scratch using Delta II, they could justify the much lower cost to build an Avista. And even if it didn’t quite pencil out, Buick would benefit from a halo car, a proper one. Duncan Aldred telling us that Cascada is a halo vehicle for Buick was a weak argument (I believe it was Duncan, it was during last year’s NAIAS).
I’d like to see Buick great again. Financially that will only happen with class leading crossovers taking the lead. But there needs to be an emotional component provided via personal luxury cars as well. People lust after a 911, and then realizing they have a family, end up buying a Macan.
As a 2014 Lacrosse owner the new model appears larger (I don’t need larger). The new center console is too confining. Lastly, it is even more difficult to see out the back. A sharp looking car but not for me. Hoping the next gen Regal will suit my needs.
The new LaCrosse is indeed larger than the old model, but not so much in the exterior footprint as much as utilizing the available interior space more efficiently. It’s bigger indeed, but not without purpose.
Here’s a comparison of your LaX to the new one:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/01/dimensional-brief-2017-buick-lacrosse-is-larger-than-2014-2016-buick-lacrosse-in-nearly-every-dimension/
Gen3 vs. Gen2 LaCrosse, having owned both (with an Audi A4 in between) is meaningfully better. I wouldn’t have repurchased with out the following improvements
– The increase in size yielded a meaningful improvement in the back seat, especially leg room. It’s a place adults will actually like to sit. This is a big deal if you have to haul around a growing family, but don’t want yet another SUV.
– The improvement in total ergonomic comfort for the driver also took a step up…plenty of room to splay out your arms and legs on long trips. The whole essense of this car is the long highway drive, so they did the right things to make it better for the driver.
– The car “Drives Smaller” than Gen2, much more agile and responsive.
– The A pillar blind spot issue of the Gen2 is eliminated.
– Fuel consumption is much improved.
I agree with the comment on rear-facing visbility…that is still compromised by the design, but this is a trade off that of other good-looking cars are making as well. Main flaw I experience is that the 8 speed transmission is not 100% optimized yet.
Overall, if consumers drive this car, I believe it will impress and it will sell. It’s a really good car and it has a clear purpose: it can cleave off a certain small portion of folks who otherwise would go SUV in order to get passenger space/long haul driving, but want more comfort and immersive driving experience. I think the main problem is getting AWARENESS AND TRIAL given the market’s tendency to default to SUV/CUV’s.
I’ve really wonder how many people buy the cars in the full-size category … I’m pretty sure the full-size car category’s sales have plunged. It can’t just be LaX the only vehicle being plunged sales wise.
Cannot fool serious car buyers anymore, who are not run of the mill CUV or SUV drivers. Skin deep redesigns or restyles don’t cut it today. I made a prior comment about the status of the current Impala model, which basically, is the mirror image of the LaCrosse, with a little more pizzazz to the overall styling…..Turn the position of motor around and make it drive the rear wheels primarily, and offer all wheel drive as an option. Then, offer performance packages with suspension and engine upgrades. Enough with the connectivity, safety alerts, and entertainment features and options. Its the smart phone syndrome with car designs today…the phone function is of least importance and the internet and social media access is priority. I want to enjoy my driving experience. If i need to be entertained, I will watch TV, sports, movies, and attend a concert at home or at the appropriate venue. I do not need to connect constantly with different media while driving, but need to expend more effort to my awareness of the roads I drive and enjoy some level of performance in the vehicle I am driving. Lastly, all the safety alert gadgets in the world won’t guarantee you an accident free experience. Staying off the road and avoiding bad drivers is the only way around this. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a little satisfaction in our everyday driving by being connected to the roads we drive, stimulated by the sensory experience of a more performance inspired vehicle. Fleet and rental car designed (front wheel drive, soft suspension, vanilla styling) vehicles are not attracting potential buyers like was the the norm in the past few decades. The high pricing of vehicles today presents a much greater challenge for buyers, making the right purchase really difficult. Up to this point in my life, I have owned pickups, suvs, and cuvs out necessity, practicality, and needs. My lifestyle has changed enough to where I would consider buying a sedan, but with the selection of, predominately, front drive based vehicles, other than the Cadillac rear drivers, which are out of my price range, there is nothing available from GM that interests me. This situation is very frustrating to me and, I am sure, to many others looking for that right vehicle. Hopefully, GM will rethink its product portfolio and get back on track soon with a different approach to car design, especially.
I appreciate your perspective on this, as I am also a fan of driving a well-balanced, good-handling vehicle… rather than playing with my smartphone. But as much as I am a fan of RWD vehicles and all the benefits associated with them, the overwhelming majority of vehicles in the segment that the LaCrosse competes in are FWD and don’t have the road-handling qualities you are referring to. These vehicles are big, plushy and comfy… qualities that consumers are looking for in this segment. So, the sales performance illustrated in this article has almost nothing to do with the wheels that propel this vehicle.
Meanwhile, the market as a whole is demanding connectivity and infotainment features… so much so that it’s now in the top 3 priority items for purchase consideration and buying intent decisions.
That said, there are still great-looking and well-driving vehicles for us car guys, with the Camaro being just one example… and the entire Cadillac sedan range, save for the XTS, being some of the others. True, all of these offer advanced levels of connectivity… but we aren’t required to use them, are we? We can simply drive the car, and let the features be.
Wasn’t it Lee Iaccoca that said “people who drive Buicks are between 75 and dead”? I’d say the Lucerene & LaCrosse are right on target for that market. Around my area, if you see a Buick sedan of any vintage, that’s who’s driving it.
About what year did Mr. Iacocca say that? Golly, I hope that perceptions have changed since that time DECADES AGO.
Yes, Alex, that was back in the ’70s I believe. Just before they woke up and started re-doing the line to attract a younger buyer. While things have definitely changed, I still think the two sedans have lagged back.
All manufacturers are dealing with the shift from sedans to more SUVs. To be fair, we need to get into the spring selling season before making a sales judgement for the new Lacrosse.
The Car and Driver review was very positive in all aspects.
I still would like to see a serious performance engine option, which I believe would do wonders for the brand image.
This is unfortunate for Buick! The new LaCrosse is such a stellar large, FWD-based family sedan that GM seemed to have gotten right in so many ways! It’s big, comfortable, handles decently, looks pretty good, has all the latest infotainment tech, and has an AWD option! I actually expected this to potentially take customers away from the comparable XTS. It all goes to show that GM’s efforts in delivery good family sedans came just a tad too late…..This is an SUV/CUV crazed market today, and it’s going to take a lot to make sedans appealing again! At least until the next major oil crisis loom….
I wonder if it’s because the buyers liked the shorter, taller, more rounded look of the last one compared to this new well creased design?
In fairness, most vehicles in GM line-up is down for January.
I have seen the Lacrosse in person heading to work and got to say it did look good but I am not sure it is a great looking vehicle all over if you know what I mean. I prefer the previous generation model over the new model.
Lets all look at what Chrysler is doing with the Charger. This is the kind of vehicle GM lacks. The Charger can be almost anything under the sun. It can be a basic rear wheel drive with a competent V6, a V6 all wheel drive, and a performance oriented rear wheel drive with several levels of performance and three V8 engine choices. That’s one model line that can compete with several GM models, including LaCrosse, Impala, SS, and Cadillac CTS models. I would be willing to bet that sales for the Charger haven’t dropped 68%!
I would not look at anything that Chrysler is doing with the Charger as an example of how to manage a vehicle line.
First of all, the Charger’s overall sales volume is riddled with fleet sales… a market GM is purposefully avoiding. Second of all, the Charger has so much incentives on it, that it might as well be sold at cost, with the holdback given back to the customer. GM is not doing anything close to that with the LaX… there is still a profit per unit target on it, which shows just how disciplined the new GM is running its business. The complete opposite is true of FCA and the Charger/300 lines.
In all, the Charger (and its Chrysler 300 platform mate) are not examples of how to run a vehicle line. FCA is running them very similar to how the Old GM ran most vehicle lines: overproduce to keep the plant humming along, then slap them with incentives and dump the remaining third volume that you know you can’t sell at retail to fleets and rental fleets. If you want an actual figure of how many units the Charger actually sells to retail customers, then cut roughly a third from its sales volume.
And lastly:
– Dodge Charger sales fell 19 percent to 7,153 units in January:
http://fcauthority.com/2017/02/dodge-sales-numbers-results-figures-january-2017/
– Chrysler 300 sales fell 17 percent to 4,708 units in January:
http://fcauthority.com/2017/02/chrysler-sales-numbers-results-figures-january-2017/
How many of those were fleet and rental fleet sales?
PS: I hope you mis-typed that the Charger competes with the CTS… in that regard, it must also compete with the 5 Series, MB E-Class, Lexus GS, Jaguar XE, and Maserati Ghibli. What an awesome Swiss-army-style type of car the Charger is! 😉
Charger completing with CTS is a laughable idea. Even if you compare the the hellcat to CTSV is a laughable idea even though performance wise are similar
The ONLY way those two cars are comparable are in straight line acceleration figures.
I don’t know what some of you people are looking for to say the Lacrosse looks like a old mans car ,, the sculptured lines are equally competitive with todays lines and much better than others
Sorry guys, I didn’t mean it as a head to head competition between the CTS and Charger. The configuration is similar, but its obvious they are miles apart category wise and in price range…oh, and by the way, the CTS is showing poor sales numbers also. Way better quality than what Chrysler has to offer, but way too expensive. This is one of of the problems at GM…bad market analysis of some of these vehicles.
So some of us don’t care what is underneath the sculpted lines, I guess.
If GM is is running a more disciplined operation than Chrysler, why the bad sales numbers. If a Charger is a fleet sales type vehicle, what are the Chevy Impala and Buick LaCrosse…bigger versions of Malibus, Veranos, Regals, and Cruzes. Last time I was at an airport, there were zillions of these models at the rental agencies.
Bottom line….Is it better to produce and try to sell a vehicle that has the option of several different configurations or a one trick pony, generic sedan? If you know anything about sales, I think the answer is obvious.
Would you be attracted to the ice cream stand that has,only, vanilla and chocolate or the one that has twenty five flavors? Its not always about quality, but many times, mass appeal drives a market. Do yourselves a favor….make your own little survey. Ask your friends, family members, and co workers to identify a picture of a LaCrosse or a Charger to see which vehicle is more familiar to him or her.
Honestly I saw way more hyundais as rental for some reason…. then the Chrysler products
sedans have gotten dull and bloated in the exterior designs, car designs are still a disaster regarding the fact that I compared a 1977 Buick Park ave VS a 2017 Lacrosse.
Put simply, The Buick Lacrosse is too expensive. I am a 41 year old married Gen X professional and father of two children and I would love to lease one, but the leasing prices are insane. It is a great car but its still a Buick. It does not have the panache of Cadillac or Lincoln, but GM seems to think that it does now that its bigger. I think they are wrong. Lower the pricing/leasing pricing and this car’s sales will do MUCH better. There are plenty of folks like me that are looking for a quiet cabin and non-sporty sedan ride. I am at an age when I want peace and comfort on my commute. The urban noise pollution around us who live in large cities is extreme and getting worse. Nowadays most cars that offer a quiet cabin and comfortable ride are rare and very expensive. Buick could fill this need/void in the market, if only they would lower their pricing. That is what attracted me to the previous Lacrosse body style and I leased one and loved it. Styling suggestion to GM…go back to the non-color logo. Thank you
They’re offering $339 a month, $0 down leases for 39 months around here. That’s not out of line if compared to something similar like a Lexus ES or Acura TLX. As has been reported, cars have fallen out of favor across the board, for all makes, as crossover sales have taken over.
I’m a “car guy” through and through. First car was a Contour SVT. Next I had two GTOs. I’d like to put a car in my garage for family transportation, but our new house has less room in the garage than our much older house did. (As houses have grown over the decades, why have garages shrunk? Side rant.) So for less than the footprint of a LaCrosse, I can get something as big as an Acadia, and end up with more interior and cargo room. Cheap gas isn’t helping the sales situation either.
Thank you for your response Brian. That lease sounds very reasonable. I am in Miami, Florida and the Lacrosse leases here are much higher. Where is that lease deal being offered? What dealership?
Dealer is VanDevere, in Akron, Ohio. Good luck hunting, I hope you find something similar down there.