Did Not Know These Existed

"Steve in Manhattan" (blogenfreude01) 05/12/2016 at 18:15 • Filed to: None

0

28

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! - if it’s a rental car at some point, I’ll try it.

jkm7680 > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 18:18

0

They will exclusively be rental cars.

Racin'Jason001 > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 18:18

1

Quality review:

You should take a look at it!

Steve in Manhattan > jkm7680 05/12/2016 at 18:22

1

Might be - don’t know where the guy driving it got it. I don’t like height of the sweep up at the rear, but before I saw the badge I thought it might be a new Mercedes.

itschrome > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 18:36

0

I was peeping them at the dealer when i bought the buffalo. they look awesome in person but that photo makes it look retarded.. I hate convertibles but it was a nice looking roofless little thing.

Steve in Manhattan > Racin'Jason001 05/12/2016 at 18:38

1

Guy does a good review.

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 18:48

0

The U.S. got it last year but the Vauxhall/Holden/Opel Cascada has been around on this side of the pond and to our antipodean cousins in a land down under for over three years.

They haven’t been popular by any means in the U.K. Yes I know we have crappy weather but we do buy considerably more convertibles than you would think.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/12/2016 at 19:00

0

I you stripped the badges off it and showed it to me, I would have said Mercedes, Chrysler Sebring, or less likely a Lexus (what with the SC400 and all). But Mercedes and Lexus would likely have put a metal roof on.

Bourbon&JellyBeans > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 19:13

0

I kinda feel that they look like convertible jelly beans because of how round they are. Still, a convertible Buick is cool.

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 19:34

0

I think that is what will make it sell better in the U.S.

Steve in Manhattan > Bourbon&JellyBeans 05/12/2016 at 19:53

1

To be clear - it’s not good looking, but it’s not unattractive. Looks better than the old SC400, better than the late Sebring convertible (which I kind of like) and nearly on par with the current E class droptop, that is a bit clunky looking in my opinion.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/12/2016 at 19:54

0

A metal roof?

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 20:12

0

No. All fabric I’m afraid.

The Cascada comes on at 1,660Kg while the metal roof of my neighbours 2008 VW Eos comes in at 1,550Kg.

A metal roof on the Cascada would add quite a weight to an already hefty car.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/12/2016 at 20:24

0

I meant would it sell better with a metal roof ...

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 20:42

0

In the U.K., no. The Cascada is a non player for many where the VW Eos and Cabrio, Audi A3 and A5, etc... rule. There are cheaper with Peugeot and more prestige with the Mercedes, etc...

So a metal roof would add weight and further decrease the desirability of an already undesired car.

For the U.S. market I can’t see added weight and slower 0-60 than already, would be a greater seller.

Milky > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 21:06

1

You think thats better looking than a SC400?! Yea the SC is jellybean-y but it was about the first car to do it 23 years ago. This Buick is still trying to pull it off. Not to mention holy FWD proportions. They pulled the A-pillar forward!

Yea if both cars were offered to me, I’d be driving away in the Lexus every time.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/12/2016 at 21:07

1

Yeah, they should have shaved about 10% at least off the weight. But it’s HEAVY.

Steve in Manhattan > Milky 05/12/2016 at 21:19

1

I’m sorry - I got the model designation wrong: I meant the SC430 (Top Gear’s worst car in the world that they gave to Hammond). A 2 seat metal-roofed convertible.

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 21:28

0

Ye’, I thought the Eos was heavy as it was the same weight as our old Mk2 Skoda Superb estate but a heavier car with a soft top like the Cascada.

Vauxhall/Opel do some nice hot hatches, hatches, family cars (saloon and estates) but people get in their minds certain marques for certain vehicle body types and it takes something outstanding to draw them in, this ain’t it.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/12/2016 at 22:07

0

In cars like these, the center of gravity doesn’t have to lower, so you can put on a metal folding roof without penalty. I have a feeling a lot of the weight gain comes from sound deadening and extra bracing to keep the A pillar from shaking.

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 22:15

0

The Cascada doesn’t have a big engine as it is. It’s more a cruiser than anything performance and I’d imagine the bracing for the A pillar would still be needed for a hard top as much as it’s needed for the soft top.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/12/2016 at 22:24

0

Nah, I watched a road test - said they do a lot of stiffening to stop cowl shake. Still, maybe it’s not that much of a factor. I’m guessing here .... And I believe the engine that’s in it is the biggest one you can get in the Opel/Vauxhall versions.

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/12/2016 at 22:44

0

I assumed they would have pretty much the same underpinnings in regard to stiffening the body for when the roof is down to reduce flexing.

In the U.K. it’s available in

1.4i 140ps turbo 6 speed manual

1.6i 170ps turbo 6 speed automatic

1.6i 200ps turbo 6 speed manual

and

2.0CDTi 170ps 6 speed manual.

The Buick however only comes in the 1.6 turbo (not sure what ps) as I suspect it would be the most powerful petrol and opting out of offering a diesel.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/13/2016 at 00:29

0

Here in US America we are idiots. Very few understand engine choices. Also, I think the barrier is that you have to have NHTSA test each engine transmission combination in multiple crash tests. While I applaud the safety measures, I realize that we can’t have nice things here. NHTSA should, after all, accept the results of the EuroNCAP tests - after all, we have bigger bumpers, which should made our cars even safer.

Milky > Steve in Manhattan 05/13/2016 at 09:00

0

Oh well yea. That makes perfect sense.

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/13/2016 at 11:23

0

The U.S. misses out on so many cars, not just for the 25 year rule on private imports but having to crash test each and every engine and body type making it cost ineffective for any company to import a car unless it can be sure it’ll be a big seller.

As I’m sure the Ford Focus and Mondeo/Fusion estates would sell well as would a 3 door Fiesta.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/13/2016 at 13:56

0

The corporations with a lot of money, I think, are just cheap. And yet I’m glad we test cars as thoroughly as we do. And I think 5mph bumpers were a good idea. But I think the 25 rule should be 10 or 15. If you buy a car less crashworthy than a similar car in the US, you’re the one that will suffer if you wreck it.

Svend > Steve in Manhattan 05/13/2016 at 19:46

0

I think it’s excessive to have to crash test every engine and body style within especially when most if not all the crash testing has already been done to standards recognised by most of the world.

Personally I see it as a further barrier put in place to ‘protect’ home built vehicles, especially when a lot of states don’t carry yearly inspections and when they do some are only for emissions. Why set standards if they aren’t going to be maintained.

Especially when there are cars like these are on U.S. roads. Granted not an excessively large number but a number none the less.

Steve in Manhattan > Svend 05/14/2016 at 09:57

0

Fair enough.