Is that the ugliest SUV you’ve ever seen? Akerson really hit Buick with an ugly stick to come up with this. Gag me with a spoon. I’ve read elsewhere that ovality is a virtue for fuel economy, but I don’t see it. Maybe it will be popular with the Oblate Sisters, or any woman named Rotunda. The Aztek didn’t look this bad. No doubt you’ve heard that the Black Rhino is an endangered species. Wrong! GM hired them to sit on the back end of an otherwise good looking SUV and produce this abomination! They just had to move to Korea.
Can it tow anything? It was funny, today I saw a really fat person in a vw bug, and I can’t help it but the body shape of the person and the car were the same. If it can’t tow anything it does not qualify as suv?
That thing is hideous to look at but my first thought when seeing the pic was that it looked like a Nissan Juke, which is hideous in its own right.
Ghastly, to say the least.
Like the Nissan Rogue, it looks like the view out the back is poor too. Turbo or not, 1.4L motors in awd SUVs don’t feel too comfy in the passing lane. Anyone can make a “slow” Eco car. The front looks like it came from a grade B godzilla movie.
It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall and listen in to dealer comments when they’re attending events touting new vehicles before they’re unveiled to the public.
There was a probably a collective groan from the Buick dealers who will be tasked with selling these things…
Like I said before, I think GM made a big mistake keeping Buick and dumping Olds and Pontiac. Buick styling was always questionable from way back. When they did come up with something half way acceptable, they put those silly exhaust ports on the side reminding people of 1950’s styling. My wife saw those and I couldn’t even get her to consider a Buick. I just can’t bring myself to drive a Chevy and even if a Caddy isn’t hideous, no way you’d want to drive one around town with the name plate. So that left Buick. But with their styling and exhaust ports, that pretty much leaves GM out of the game. People are buying cars for styling a lot of the time. Haven’t they learned?
Apple said they never ask their customers for their input. That it is Apple’s job to know what people want and not the customer. Obviously GM does neither.
In the eye of the beholder I guess… Most crossover ‘utes’ look pretty unappealing to me. You can bet there won’t be someone hoarding one with 10 miles on it in their garage for 40 years due to the ‘classic lines’ of it though. Maybe it would look nicer in a better color than ‘senility gray’ or ‘boredom beige’
Keeping Buick at the expense of Olds is NOT a big deal. They are and have always been the same car. From what I have read, they did differ for a while in management which resulted in better quality control which contributed to superior sales performance and ultimately their retention. But the differences were negligible over time and Olds can easily be resurrected in the same way Mariner outboards can be reserected when people tire of black Mercury outboards and want grey ones again from the same maker.
BTW, IMO, beige and grey (silver) popularity are born out of practicality…thanks to climate change.
I’ll reserve judgment of this Buick SUV until I can look inside one and see how much interior space is available and then drive one and see what it is like. Sometimes, form follows function. I have attached pictures of cars from the past. The 1949 Nash AirFlyte had a shape that was designed in a wind tunnel. It also had quite a bit of interior space. The shape of the car gave it the lowest coefficient of drag of any domestic car available in 1949–about half that of other cars. As a result, the gasoline mileage was quite good for the times. The 1975 AMC Pacer had amazing interior size for the dimensions of the car and also had quite good visibility. I once owned a 1975 Pacer and its width really made it stable on the highway. However, the 1959 Cadillac didn’t offer much for a car that occupied as much space as it did. I could not see function in the form of the 1959 Cadillac.
“I said to myself, ‘can’t be THAT bad, maybe a bad camera angle’. So I found this:…”
I thought the same thing, and found the same picture. It doesn’t look nearly as bad in your photo, texases. I’m still not a fan, and I just had to have a little fun at Buick’s expense.
You might remember I once mentioned what I think is the ugliest vehicle being produced today, and it happens to be an SUV. It’s The Kia Soul. While this Buick isn’t pretty, I’ve seen far uglier vehicles around, like this one. I know it’s not an SUV, but it sure takes the prize for being ugly.
@Bing If the GM 2014 models look like the 1949 Nash AirFlytes, I might just buy one. I remember when the 1949 models hit the road. I made a scrapbook of all the 1949 models that were available in this country (USA) by clipping the pictures from advertisements in magazines. I remember going to showrooms with my dad. I thought that the 1949 Nash was the most modern looking car, both inside and out, than anything else on the road.
