My brother in law is getting right at the EPA estimate on the Escape with 21 MPG. The 2006 Explorer is rated 16 MPG combined with the V6. He is getting what others report on the EPA site of 15 MPG. Just about what I get with my much larger Sequoia V8 gas guzzler.
The Accord interior looks great. About as nice as it gets in a mid priced car. Impala looks nice.....if it was a 1992 model Impala (even then there were probably nicer interiors. (I have driven these ugly useless dinosaurs and it ain't much fun). Cadillac looks pretty good, but that is a big leap over last years model which looked pretty cheap inside. Mazda looks good - considering the price! It would be fun to compare it to a Cobalt ( I can't do that cutting and pasting.)
I like the comment about too many dials on the Accord, guess they should make it more like a Buick for some folks, idiot lights, gear shift on the steering wheel, high beam button on the floor, 5 button a.m. radio..............
I've had Impala rentals. They are alright, but why does GM continue making seats that give you a backache after an hour or two? ...and why do they make it so complicated to set and use the trip odometer? Geez, everyone else just has a reset button on the dash instead of a bunch of gizmo switches you've got to go through finding it.
Maybe I'm just not that picky, but that Impala's interior doesn't bother me. I think with those two pics though, the Accord has an advantage being shown in a lighter color. The light creme/beige colors make an interior look warmer and more inviting, and sort of tone down the cheapness of hard plastics. In contrast, gray has sort of a cold, harsh look to it, that will accentuate a hard surface and make it look cheaper.
FWIW, that interior is of a 2006 or newer Impala. I think the 2000-2005 Impala interior was pretty nasty, and they really took a giant leap forward with the 2006. In fact, when I was looking at new cars back when I bought my Intrepid, one factor was the Impala's interior. The base level Intrepid, which is what I got, had a nicer interior, IMO, than the top level Impala!
In a similar vein, Buick took a giant leap when they went from the Century/Regal to the LaCrosse. Even Pontiac, when they re-did the Grand Prix for 2004, made a pretty notable improvement in their interiors. But in their case, it just wasn't enough!
My biggest gripe about the Impala, and W-body in general, is interior room. As big as the car is, it's not that generous inside. You might not notice it if you're average height. However, at 6'3", I can adjust the front seat of an Accord, Altima, or Camry, or even a Fusion, to where I'm comfy. And then, leaving that seat where it is, I can still fit in the back seat fairly comfortably. But in GM's W-body, there is no foot room, and no legroom. And even with the seat moved forward, I still have to slouch or lean forward, or my head hits the ceiling.
The smaller Malibu and Aura are actually packaged better, IMO, although I still find them tight on legroom in the back seat. There's actually a hollowed-out space in the seatback for your knees to go, but the top of it is too low, so my knees end up hitting the seatback.
My brother in law is getting right at the EPA estimate on the Escape with 21 MPG. The 2006 Explorer is rated 16 MPG combined with the V6. He is getting what others report on the EPA site of 15 MPG. Just about what I get with my much larger Sequoia V8 gas guzzler.
I don't know what it is about the midsize BOF SUVs. Their fuel economy is fractionally better than their fullsize brothers. I've owned one midsize SUV and I'll never own another. I had a Nissan Pathfinder that was an excellent vehicle in terms of build quality etc, but considering its size, fuel economy was terrible considering my Suburban and current Expedition yield similar mileage, yet these two vehicles are much larger and weigh 1500lbs more. The PF would get 1-2 mpg better around town, but on the hwy my full-size SUVs would match and often beat the PF in fuel economy.
According to chevy's website a 6cyl trailbazer and a 5.3 powered Suburban have the exact same fuel economy ratings. An Explorer vs Expedition about the same. The v6 explorer is rated 14/20, the v8 is rated 15/21 and the Expedition is rated 14/20. How a larger, heavier, and more powerful vehicle gets basically the same fuel economy baffles me. It must have something to do with aerodynamics.
>guess they should make it more like a Buick some folks, idiot lights, gear shift on the steering wheel, high beam button on the floor, 5 button a.m. radio
Someone's confusing the foreign cars. My Buicks have full gauges along with warning lights should fuel become too low or oil level become low, e.g. I have a gearshift on the column (it would hinder movement of the steering wheel to have it on there). I wanted it there because I wanted the full seat; I have carried 6 people in comfort in each leSabre. My high/low beam is on the column along with the flash to pass (which I thoroughly love to use). Eight speaker CD RTS radio with AM and even FM (two racks of presets, imagine that :P ), HUD display, chrome wheels, comfortable leather seats for me for 6 hour driving or more. Other people may find some other popular car seats adequate for their driving, but myself I didn't; but they're okay for other people with different heights and shapes.
Someone needs to get out more to check out what's been available.
My biggest gripe about the Impala, and W-body in general, is interior room. As big as the car is, it's not that generous inside. You might not notice it if you're average height. However, at 6'3", I can adjust the front seat of an Accord, Altima, or Camry, or even a Fusion, to where I'm comfy. And then, leaving that seat where it is, I can still fit in the back seat fairly comfortably. But in GM's W-body, there is no foot room, and no legroom. And even with the seat moved forward, I still have to slouch or lean forward, or my head hits the ceiling.
When my wife was shopping for a new company car in '06, she had the choice of a Ford 500, Impala, or Grand Prix. The GP was by far the worst, but the '06 Impala seemed to have less rear seat room than the '01 my wife had. Like you mentioned, the interior room W-bodies is really poor. Due to us being relocated my wife had to give up the 500 and a GrandPrix was already selected for her. We're counting down the days to get rid of it. It rides terrible, is uncomfortable, and the back seat is inhospitable. I won't ride in the back seat of a GP. My head will hits the roof and the rear window, I've road in compacts that are more generous.
While the 500 wasn't the greatest car in the world, interior room was very impressive. I can't tell you how many times we'd have someone or 6' tall in the back seat and nearly every time, they'd comment on how much head and leg room they had.
Instrumentation and overall driver information is second to none with most GM cars (I'm talking functionality not appearance). Not that most people care, but I like the fact that in a Suburban you can monitor engine hours, water temp, trans temp, individual tire pressures etc. Those are things I miss with my Expedition. Sure I have full gauges, but Fords gauges are marginally better than idiot lights. I've never seen my voltage gauge or oil pressure gauge move while driving. You can't tell me that oil pressure doesn't change from a cold start up on a 10 degree day to fully warmed up.
but the '06 Impala seemed to have less rear seat room than the '01 my wife had.
Funny you'd mention that, but I noticed it, too! While the '06 Impala was just a heavy facelift of the '00-05 style, I didn't think they changed it enough to alter the roofline, or any key dimensions, but evidently they did. The legroom was worse on the '06, and it seemed like I had to slouch down more.
The 500/Taurus is one of those cars that I really WANT to like, but just can't for some reason. I think it's just too boring, or something. I was impressed with the back seat legroom. We're talking 1983 Electra/DeVille class, here, maybe even better! But oddly, I found them a bit tight up front. The seating position felt high, but not very far back from the firewall. Sort of like a minivan or single-cab pickup truck. With that huge back seat and trunk, the car would make a perfect taxi.
When your wife had the 500, did she have any problems with it?
When your wife had the 500, did she have any problems with it?
She only had it a little over a year. She put about 35k miles on it w/o any issues and it had the CVT. It was great for a company car, but I wouldn't buy one. Maybe the Taurus with 3.5/6speed would be better, they seemed to improve the exterior and interior. Just to many better alternatives. The Volvo based chassis was a nice treat compared to the W-bodies. Better layout and tighter build quality IMO.
When I get rental cars, the Grand Prix is without a doubt the very worst right along with the Chrysler Sebring ilk. GM butchered a car that had a beautiful past in the 60's and early 70's. It could have been a good personal sport luxury car, but first GM cloned it and then they made it the worst of the clones. Very sad to see the Pontiac division that used to have great cars like Bonneville, Catalina and GP just absolutely ruined by ineptitude. It may be just as well if they do bury it.
According to chevy's website a 6cyl trailbazer and a 5.3 powered Suburban have the exact same fuel economy ratings.
I have a different experience. My '99 Sonoma 2WD Ext cab 4.3 V6 gets 23 combined/25 trip. My '01 Ext cab 4x4 Silverado 4.8 V8 gets 16 combined/19 trip at 70 mph. The little one is nearly 7 mpg better either way, but has 90k more miles on it. I don't do city driving enough for it to matter.
When I looked at base LS Trailblazers a year ago, sticker was 22 hwy for the 4.2 L L6. A rating that the 5.3 L Surburban did not have. My friend with a 5.3 gets 12-13 city in a Z71 ext cab. He still got 16 on trips to Vt. in winter, at 80 mph. I would expect 22 from the short Trailblazer 2 WD on same trip.
Very sad to see the Pontiac division that used to have great cars like Bonneville, Catalina and GP just absolutely ruined by ineptitude. It may be just as well if they do bury it.
It is sad. That was a great name. My dad's favorite. I still remember our brand new 1956 Pontiac. Pink and gray. I seems like it was the 4 door hard top. We took several trips in that car before it got repossessed. We had one of those window box things with dry ice to keep us cool across the desert. Then when they had enough money my dad bought a new 1961 Pontiac Tempest. That was the end of his love affair with Pontiac. I think that GM had pretty much run their course on cars by 1960. I cannot think of any but the Corvette since then I would consider buying.
This goes to the question of perception and what's acceptable. Your response was directed to a comment that things were very rosy in GM-land and that the vehicles couldn't be better.
OTOH the Chairman of GM just publicly apologized for providing the US buying public with crap for so many years.
There is a disconnect here somewhere. I too had two 80's era GMs. The first was a lemon and had to be towed from our house at least 5 times leaving my kids stranded at home unable to get to school ( no bus service ) there. The dealer took back the vehicle if we'd buy another model Olds. We did - at a huge discount for our inconvenience. That vehicle went with the ex- and apparently lasted a good 10+ yrs. Good riddance to both....cars that is .
I understand what Wagoner was apologizing about. I bought some of his company's crap.
Idiot lights? Uh, my 1988 Buick Park Ave actually has full instrumentation! I had a really neat Sonomatic AM radio with BUICK spelled out on the five buttons in my 1968 Buick Special Deluxe.
When I get rental cars, the Grand Prix is without a doubt the very worst right along with the Chrysler Sebring ilk.
Here we are picking on GM, and we have overlooked the Sebring - Breeze, whatever the name is these days. It doesn't get much worse than that. As bad as the Impala seems to me, the Sebring is much worse.......lowest grade cloth and plastic. I am certain the engineering is about 1965 level.
2 years ago we rented a Chrysler 300 in Florida. I know people who like these, but I don't get it. It was an AWD for some reason (in Florida?) and though it has a big hood right out of the 60s and lots of power, the steering was so loose I felt unsafe over 60mph.
IMO, D3 make cars by committee. Different divisions design different parts, then there is a search for the lowest bidder for parts, then it is put together with minimal thought. I often wonder if the presidents of the D3 have actually driven their own cars (probably sit in the back of a limo)....and even better, have they tried competitors cars.
Those full gauges were most likely an extra-cost option, but still, Buick should get credit for at least offering them! I don't think they ever did offer extra gauges in the '77-84 RWD model...just a speedo and fuel gauge.
Gauges are one reason I've usually preferred Mopar. They'd often give you full gauges standard...or at least more gauges than you'd get with a competing GM or Ford car. I think at one time, idiot lights were actually considered a luxury item, though. With gauges, the uninformed aren't really going to know what to look for, so if something's reading too low or too high, they might not notice until it's too late. But with an idiot light, when that sucker comes on, you know right then and there that there's a problem.
One setup I really like is what the 1979-81 full-sized Mopars used...full gauges PLUS an idiot light. That way, if you're not paying attention to the gauge, the idiot light will still get your attention. And I guess if one or the other fails, you have a backup. Still, even that setup's not foolproof. I've had three of those things now, first a '79 Newport and now two New Yorkers. And every single one had the habit of having the warning light for the temperature gauge come on when the gauge itself was reading normal. And it would do it at times that I know the car couldn't be overheating...like when it's first warming up, so I knew the light had to be lying! :P
Everything about the Impala was inferior to the Accord,
Another thing about those dashes...the Accord is far nicer than the Impala, but the Accord is actually much nicer than the Cadillac. I also, don't like that cubby hole feeling of being seated down, and having to look up and over the dash as you do in the Impala. And, the view you do get doesn't include the hood, so you have no idea where the front of the car or the fenders are. I feel sorry for anyone who has only driven D3 cars
Bankruptcy Is the Perfect Remedy for Detroit By TODD J. ZYWICKI While Washington tries to arrange a bailout, the Detroit Three auto makers and their union, the United Auto Workers, keep insisting that bankruptcy would be the kiss of death. Not so: a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing will likely result in a stronger domestic industry.
To understand why, consider that the fundamental question to ask of any firm facing bankruptcy is whether it is "economically failed" or simply "financially failed."
If a typewriter manufacturer were to file for bankruptcy today it likely would be considered an economically failed enterprise. The market for typewriters is small and shrinking, and the manufacturer's financial, physical and human capital would probably be better redeployed elsewhere, such as making computers.
A financially failed enterprise, on the other hand, is worth more alive than dead. Chapter 11 exists to allow it to continue in business while reorganizing. Reorganization arose in the late 19th century when creditors of railroads unable to meet their debt obligations threatened to tear up their tracks, melt them down, and sell the steel as scrap. But innovative judges, lawyers and businessmen recognized that creditors would collect more if they all agreed to reduce their claims and keep the railroads running and producing revenues to pay them off. The same logic animates Chapter 11 today.
General Motors looks like a financially failed rather than an economically failed enterprise -- in need of reorganization not liquidation. It needs to shed labor contracts, retirement contracts, and modernize its distribution systems by closing many dealerships. This will give rise to many current and future liabilities that may be worked out in bankruptcy. It may need new management as well. Bankruptcy provides an opportunity to do all that. Consumers have little to fear. Reorganization will pare the weakest dealers while strengthening those who remain.
So why do the Detroit Three managements and the UAW insist that "bankruptcy is not an option"? Perhaps because of the pain that would be inflicted upon both.
The bankruptcy code places severe limitations on the compensation that can be paid to a manager unless there is a "bona fide job offer from another business at the same or greater rate of compensation." Given the dismal performance of the Detroit Three in recent years, it seems unlikely that their senior management will be highly coveted on the open market. Incumbent management is also likely to find its prospects for continued employment less-secure.
Chapter 11 also provides a mechanism for forcing UAW workers to take further pay cuts, reduce their gold-plated health and retirement benefits, and overcome their cumbersome union work rules. The process for adjusting a collective bargaining agreement is somewhat complicated and begins with a sort of compulsory mediation process. But if this fails a company can (with court permission) nullify the agreement. This doomsday scenario is rarely triggered, however, as its threat casts a large shadow over negotiations, providing a stick to force concessions.
Those Washington politicians who repeat the mantra that "bankruptcy is not an option" probably do so because they want to use free taxpayer money to bribe Detroit into manufacturing the green cars favored by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, rather than those cars American consumers want to buy. A Chapter 11 filing would remove these politicians' leverage, thus explaining their desperation to avoid a bankruptcy.
In short, Detroit and the public has little to fear from a bankruptcy filing, but much to fear from the corrupt bargain that is emerging among incumbent management, the UAW and Capitol Hill to spend our money to avoid their reality check.
Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University School of Law.
I also, don't like that cubby hole feeling of being seated down, and having to look up and over the dash as you do in the Impala.
Now that you mention it, that was another thing I didn't like about the Impala when I looked at them. That high beltline made it feel like I was sitting in a bathtub, and made the interior feel claustrophobic. I guess it was a predictor of the times though, because everybody else raised their beltlines soon after. I think the '03 Accord did a pretty good job though, of still making the interior feel open and airy.
The Intrepid I ended up with has a lower beltline, lower dash, and feels more open to me than the Impala. But honestly, visibility is actually worse! I could see the hood on the Impala, but I can't with the Intrepid. I hate having to parallel park the thing, because the car's really hard to judge, and I don't do it enough anyway to be that good at it.
General Motors looks like a financially failed rather than an economically failed enterprise -- in need of reorganization not liquidation. It needs to shed labor contracts, retirement contracts, and modernize its distribution systems by closing many dealerships.
Excellent article pf, and it really says it all. A loan/or bailout do not address the real problem here, so the problem will remain...just take longer to drag out and cost us poor taxpayers billions. Chapter 11 would give these companies a chance to reorganize and hopefully be stronger than ever.
Just thought about something as I was making my car payment. I wonder if hundreds of thousands of people who are now financing their vehicles through GMAC might not just say, "Forget it! My car's a worthless orphan now! I'm not making any more payments!" if GM folds. There will be a lot of people now defaulting on their car loans as did folks recently on houses on which they were upside down. Could people be soon mailing in their car keys along with their house keys? It could happen as people are no longer ashamed of being deadbeats. I just saw an episode of "Dr. Phil" where this couple was $643K in debt. The guy had a pretty nonchalant attitude though his spouse was frantic.
It's possible that GMAC could fail. But then the gov't would step in, and assist in the process of another bank taking over operations. So in the end, you'll still have to make that car payment to somebody...is just might not be GMAC.
Also, when you default on a car loan, it's a bit different from a mortgage. They'll come and re-pop your car, try to re-sell it and recoup their losses. But say, if you owe $25K on your car and they only unload it for $10K, you're still on the hook for the $15K difference. And they'll try to come after you. If you're good enough at evading them, eventually they'll give up and just charge it off, claiming it on their taxes as a loss. But then, it's considered forgiven debt, which is counted as income, so the gov't can come after you and make you pay income tax on that charged-off amount! And your credit rating will still be screwed.
With a mortgage, there are ways to get off the hook for any negative difference like that. Your credit rating will still get messed up, but the bank is the one that ends up eating the loss.
As Andre said, the bankrupcy won't excuse you from paying off the loan...someone will collect. But, I was surprised to hear that 10% of all car loans are behind in payments now...that is a pretty big figure.
Very good thought went into that article. I think he has a grasp of the facts that the pro Big 3 writers are failing to see. Democrats are torn between their undying support for the UAW and the greenies that control much of Congress. There is no love for the Big 3 only the Unions involved. Any non union industry would be thrown under the bus by this Congress. I think the only chance to get this behind US is C11.
I was surprised to hear that 10% of all car loans are behind in payments now
That matches pretty close to those behind on their home mortgages at 9.7%. I wonder how many of those loans are being left as a result of deflated values. I know my home is worth about $150k less than when we bought it. And we paid $100k less than the guy before us paid. So that is a 1/3rd of the value lost in 2 years. But we love it here and you cannot replace this home for the current value. I see most homes in this area getting taken off the MLS unless they are bank owned. The banks are more anxious to sell than most home owners.
I still think that bailing out the construction business would help the economy more than bailing out automakers. It is all about paybacks to the UAW for support of the Democrats.
and the Indebted 3 have no bailout money in hand, nor a promise of money sufficient to borrow against. During the Congressional hearings, GM and Chrysler were reported to need that money to fund their daily operations after some unspecified point in (what was then) the very near future. So with nothing in hand, do GM and Chrysler shut down for the holidays and simply stay closed until the feds prop them up?
What are the successes of his idea in the Delphi bankruptcy? Zero. The Delphi bankruptcy judge said that Delphi and the union need to negotiate without him involved. The Judge didn't want the wrath of the union if he were to impose anything at all harmful to the well being of the union. The union leaders didn't want to give anything at all up or face the wrath of their following, so they wanted the judge to make the call and then they could blame the judge to the UAW members for any concessions. So it came to the UAW and Delphi and the judge looking to GM for money to solve the bankruptcy about a year ago. Now, GM is in the same boat. We don't need more of this along with the fact that 57% of consumers would not buy from a carmaker in bankruptcy.
Blind adherence to the sacred principle of Japan makes a better car, factory, employee, town, warranty, and dealer hurts America and therefore hurts your neighbor.
GM's answer to high union costs of moving manufacturing out of the country has been their plan since 1981. The problem is the money owed to all those workers they have shed. Without them, and with themselves 50% transformed as they now are, they could already kick Japan's butt. Their products are fine. What they have in the pipeline is fine. A lot depends on OPEC.
I saw in one of the online Detroit papers that they are back to vandalizing non D3 cars in Motown. That will work - now you will discourage out of state tourism to Michigan on top of the auto collapse. Smart move UAW!
Times are different now. There are many reliable choices for consumers. Here's an interesting read: http://tinyurl.com/eynp4
The slide of the domestic automakers market share has been as long as it has been dramatic. The combined GM, Ford, Chrysler U.S. market was 73.8% in 1980. In August, excluding the foreign nameplates, Detroit's market share dropped to 48.1 percent. ... that's not the fault of the current economic situation.
As I look at the GM numbers, they’ve actually done 22.3% of the U.S. market year to date. But when you look at their level of fleet sales and the very heavy level of incentive spending to move product, their natural share level is down in the 15 to 17 % range.
The author uses IBM as a great example. IBM used to be referred to as Big Blue. (We love to throw that BIG moniker around don't we?) Look at where IBM was, what they did, and where they are now. Their size is commensurate with their market share and despite what has transpired in the stock market over the last months, the share price is around 8 times what it was in 1993.
If your slot is 22% of the market, you can't be equipped and operate as if you're going to have significantly larger share, that is unless you like bleeding money.
"Key Plastics, which makes plastic parts such as door handles and other molded components for carmakers and suppliers, said it secured up to $20 million in debtor-in-possession financing to continue operating in bankruptcy."
Thanks again pf.......the article says that GMs optimum per centage of market share - which they calculate to be 12% would actually produce a profit.
GM’s income statement clearly documents the problem. The company’s cost of goods sold in June was $36.7 billion. Its sales revenues were $38.2 billion. So, on average it cost GM nearly $0.94 to produce $1.00 in sales. This is the legacy of those fleet sales and incentive spending that Jerry York mentioned in his Bloomberg interview. Discounted fleet sales and heavy incentives largely were responsible for driving down the average revenue per vehicle almost to its manufacturing cost. In addition, GM’s spending on advertising, selling and administrative staff added a layer of enterprise marketing costs that were a little over $2 billion more than required at their natural share level of 12.7%
So, the idea is to cut all the excess spending and be content with 12% of the market instead of trying to be #1 at 22%. At 12% market share, GM could actually be profitable and GM could survive and lemko can buy a new Buick one day :shades:
GM's answer to high union costs of moving manufacturing out of the country has been their plan since 1981. The problem is the money owed to all those workers they have shed. Without them, and with themselves 50% transformed as they now are, they could already kick Japan's butt. Their products are fine. What they have in the pipeline is fine. A lot depends on OPEC.
Supposedly the health care costs will be out of the way with VEBA (assuming GM had enough money to fund it, which it does not).
Disagree that GMs products are fine. GM needs HIGHLY DESIRABLE products to help reverse market share. Products that are going to sell in volume. Is that Volt? No. Is that Camaro? No. Is CTS going to do it? No. Is Malibu going to do it? No. Everything else is even worse. They have nothing in the pipeline that I've read about to compete with: Fit (Ford is coming out with Fiesta) Civic Accord, Camry (Ford has new Fusion) CRV Prius (Ford has Fusion hybrid coming)
Those vehicles above are the bulk of the volume in the car market.
At 12% market share, GM could actually be profitable and GM could survive.
Let's examine the numbers,more and see if you still think so. GM had 22% of a 16M vehicle market or 3.52M vehicles; now you're saying they can go to 12% of an 11M vehicle market which = 1.32M. This is a 62.5% reduction.
So do you think GM with their current contracts can cut their expenses by 62.5%? Can they layoff UAW workers; or do they have to buy them out at hundreds of thousands of $ / per worker? Can GM reduce their pension costs 62%? What about their dealerships? And 62% of their suppliers can close, or reduce by that much? The problem is the contracts that GM and its suppliers have is that it can't reduce these; until they get rid of the contracts. To get rid of the contracts they need to go bankrupt.
So, the idea is to cut all the excess spending and be content with 12% of the market instead of trying to be #1 at 22%. At 12% market share, GM could actually be profitable and GM could survive and lemko can buy a new Buick one day
This is what I've been saying, and I'd do it for only $1M/year. :P
1. Declare BK. 2. Replace Wagoner with a more proactive and strategic CEO. 3. Void contracts. 4. Trim the lousiest 60% of the vehicles from the lineup 5. Shed costs like crazy - brands, staff, vehicles, liabilities, etc. Close and consolidate brands down to Chevy and Caddy ONLY 6. Design and build highly desirable vehicles with what is left.
Forget the old GM - that IS GONE. The new GM model would be like Honda - smaller, an upstart, build great and innovative vehicles. In 5 years GM could be strongly resurgent. The radical pruning HAS TO HAPPEN if GM is to be saved and be successful.
So with nothing in hand, do GM and Chrysler shut down for the holidays and simply stay closed until the feds prop them up?
I believe GM has actually said, while Chrysler has only intimated, that the lights go out on December 31 if they don't have cash in hand on that date. That's only 2 little weeks away, can the government move that fast even when they are agreed they WANT to?
Me, I am still against a bailout, bankruptcy would do SO MUCH to fix these automakers's problems, and really it might only take the PROSPECT of bankruptcy for Cerberus to plow some of its cash reserves into Chrysler. It certainly shouldn't be Joe Taxpayer doing so for a company with that much money sitting around. They are just obstinately CHOOSING not to spend it on Chrysler.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
5. Shed costs like crazy - brands, staff, vehicles, liabilities, etc. Close and consolidate brands down to Chevy and Caddy ONLY
For GM to get their business down to 12% of the total market from 22% they would have to do a bankrupcy. They have to cut every possible expense. Feeding them more money will just be throwing money at the problem, and will only prolong the agony. Bankrupcy is the only way they can get out of dealership, pension, union commitments.
Added to Chevy and Cadillac they have to keep Buick going....a top seller and very profitable in Asia for some unknown reason. If they don't keep it going in the US it will lose it's appeal in Asia.
So based on this forecast of even slower vehicle sales in 2009, does anyone here want to guess how quickly the automakers would blow thru $14B? or the $34B?
Also note that Johnson Controls, which it is stated is very large, has diversified from GM and autos, as they have foreseen trouble. They are closing plants whether GM goes BK or the taxpayers are saps and throw many tens of billions of $ away, before they are forced to fold.
I've got to admit; I believe the stuff has hit the fan in this economy. If the government chooses to use resources for the Big3, what it means is that they'll have less plugs to put in the other 50 leaks, we're having. I think this is most likely heading to a worldwide depression, and nothing is going to stop it. There are going to be more and more layoffs, foeclosures, credit card defaults, commercial mortgage foreclosures, further wealth eliminated in stocks and bonds ... You'll be very happy just to have any sort of job. This is the BIG hangover from the spending/debt party we've been on for many years.
"Reliability aside, I'd much rather have a 2000 Passat over any GM sedan of that year."
Well, reliability ISN'T aside when it's on a hook, or being pushed to the side of the road. I've had the distinct pleasure of pushing 2 off the road, one in the rain (I'm a good samaritan). OK, they were Jettas, but still VW.
My '99 Ultra has some of the same gremlins you mention with regards to fit and finish. The instrument panel had an annoying squeak in it when you hit a bump because the trim was rubbing the IP. That was a 5 cent fix ( OK, I DID stick a nickel in betweeen to separate them). The power seat panel broke off the seat, and there are some pieces of seat trim that are unravelling. It does make me wonder, "THIS was a $40k car???" at times, but it rides like a dream, gets me good gas mileage for it's size (I've NEVER gotten less than 30 mpg on a long trip), and it's reliability has NEVER been an issue. The most expensive unscheduled repair I've had in 6 1/2 years was $250 for a mass air flow sensor. But it started an ran fine even then, just had the light come on, that's all.
If you drive a Asian car and you lose your job, too bad!!!!!
What if I drive a German car made in Germany? If I lose my job, is that too bad too?
The fact is, I don't TRUST American autoworkers and prefer to buy cars that have a VIN # starting with either a J for Japan or a W for Germany. My mistrust of American autoworkers is probably misplaced for the good workers of Honda and Toyota, but the mistrust of UAW workers and Mexican assemblymen that had anything to do with my Dodge/Chrysler experience is certainly based on real work experience and direct association.
Why should I pay JOHN DOE in Detroit to use substandard parts from Mexico, China, and other cheap sources, then pay him to assemble it in a shoddy manner, when I can simply go to Toyota or Honda and get higher quality parts with higher quality build for less money!!!! Why should I overpay Americans that use substandard parts and perform in a substandard manner with their labor and skills. I'd rather CORRECTLY help pay Toyota and Honda workers who actually do a job well done! And they only require me to pay them fairly! What happened to fair?
There was nothing fair about my Big 3 experience.
Frankly, don't tell Honda & Audi this, but I'd find their vehicles to still be a compelling value even if there prices were suddenly raised 25%. I'd find Dodge and Chrysler to still be overpriced with 50% off.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
We would instantly have one million dollars in scrap metal sitting on our used car lot, no one with a pay off on there trade would be able to trade because they would be buried. Any one who ever wrecked a car would be screwed come claim time, and the list goes on and on as to why that would not work.
And that is mine or any other American's problem because????
I don't care if you are upside down on your used car. If your resale value plummets, that's your fault for overpaying and buying a Big 3 clunker to begin with. I've been saying for years that they are 200% overpriced anyway, so a 50% discount is in line with reality anyway for anyone who has any sort of judgement on value. Most Big 3 cars lose 50% in the first day anyway.
As to people walking away from their trade-ins because they are upside down, I don't give a rats behind about the banks either. If they overloaned deadbeats too much money on a car that only has some value on paper from some guide written by humans, then that is their problem. An object is only worth what it's worth.
And your statements are false. Anyone caught in a claim from a wreck would not be screwed, just the idiots who bought Big 3 vehicles would be screwed; which, in reality, they already are if there car got totalled through no fault of their own. Another reason to get a Honda!!!! Case HIsotry: Civic totalled from rear end collision was 24 months and 25,000 miles old, got $17K + tax + registration back from Mercury Insurance and we paid about 18K +TTL originally when new.
Not too big of a hit, but with a Big 3 car, I'd of had to bring a big lawsuit on the perpetrator of the accident and his insurance company.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"A pair of new surveys suggests consumers aren't likely to be as cautious about buying a vehicle from an auto maker that has filed for bankruptcy-court protection as originally thought, as long as the U.S. government is willing to play a role in the Chapter 11 process."
Ford and Chrysler will do better withou GM around to stink up the reputation of the remaining 2
LOL, not to defend GM, but what is Chrysler's reputation other than that of making nothing but :lemon: 's and gettng bailouts every 30 or so years from the tax payer? I don't think Chrysler has any reputation for anything good, unless you consider renaming a Neon a Nitro, or oops, a Caliber. Seriously, in all seriousness, if Dodge comes out with a vehicle called the Dodge Lemon, I'll buy it! At least they are being HONEST in advertising then!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
If the D3 are so bad, why are european sale going to fall an even greater percentage than our domestic sales?
That is a reflection of the economies. Europe's in as bad a shape as we are. The author or I were not trying to say that the drop in sales in the U.S. is due to the D3 sales tanking. The problems of the D3 are mainly:
1) that they 're contracts have them locked into having so many employees, and so many retirees that they need a market of about 16M with a marketshare higher then they have now, to break even. But since we've dropped so fast, the D3 can't compensate and still have the costs of producing the higher amount of vehicles. They are therefore losing $ very, very fast. Companies that don't have UAW contracts and use temporary employees, can make cuts fairly quickly and fairly deeply, to match production with sales.
2) the D3 went into this economic downturn in a very weak financial position, having lost money for years, whereas many of the other companies have made and banked profits for years. Thus the stronger companies can wait for the weaker to fail, and pick up the failing ones market-share. That's a good business strategy.
Comments
Impala looks nice.....if it was a 1992 model Impala (even then there were probably nicer interiors. (I have driven these ugly useless dinosaurs and it ain't much fun).
Cadillac looks pretty good, but that is a big leap over last years model which looked pretty cheap inside.
Mazda looks good - considering the price! It would be fun to compare it to a Cobalt ( I can't do that cutting and pasting.)
I like the comment about too many dials on the Accord, guess they should make it more like a Buick for some folks, idiot lights, gear shift on the steering wheel, high beam button on the floor, 5 button a.m. radio..............
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
FWIW, that interior is of a 2006 or newer Impala. I think the 2000-2005 Impala interior was pretty nasty, and they really took a giant leap forward with the 2006. In fact, when I was looking at new cars back when I bought my Intrepid, one factor was the Impala's interior. The base level Intrepid, which is what I got, had a nicer interior, IMO, than the top level Impala!
In a similar vein, Buick took a giant leap when they went from the Century/Regal to the LaCrosse. Even Pontiac, when they re-did the Grand Prix for 2004, made a pretty notable improvement in their interiors. But in their case, it just wasn't enough!
My biggest gripe about the Impala, and W-body in general, is interior room. As big as the car is, it's not that generous inside. You might not notice it if you're average height. However, at 6'3", I can adjust the front seat of an Accord, Altima, or Camry, or even a Fusion, to where I'm comfy. And then, leaving that seat where it is, I can still fit in the back seat fairly comfortably. But in GM's W-body, there is no foot room, and no legroom. And even with the seat moved forward, I still have to slouch or lean forward, or my head hits the ceiling.
The smaller Malibu and Aura are actually packaged better, IMO, although I still find them tight on legroom in the back seat. There's actually a hollowed-out space in the seatback for your knees to go, but the top of it is too low, so my knees end up hitting the seatback.
I don't know what it is about the midsize BOF SUVs. Their fuel economy is fractionally better than their fullsize brothers. I've owned one midsize SUV and I'll never own another. I had a Nissan Pathfinder that was an excellent vehicle in terms of build quality etc, but considering its size, fuel economy was terrible considering my Suburban and current Expedition yield similar mileage, yet these two vehicles are much larger and weigh 1500lbs more. The PF would get 1-2 mpg better around town, but on the hwy my full-size SUVs would match and often beat the PF in fuel economy.
According to chevy's website a 6cyl trailbazer and a 5.3 powered Suburban have the exact same fuel economy ratings. An Explorer vs Expedition about the same. The v6 explorer is rated 14/20, the v8 is rated 15/21 and the Expedition is rated 14/20. How a larger, heavier, and more powerful vehicle gets basically the same fuel economy baffles me. It must have something to do with aerodynamics.
Someone's confusing the foreign cars. My Buicks have full gauges along with warning lights should fuel become too low or oil level become low, e.g. I have a gearshift on the column (it would hinder movement of the steering wheel to have it on there). I wanted it there because I wanted the full seat; I have carried 6 people in comfort in each leSabre. My high/low beam is on the column along with the flash to pass (which I thoroughly love to use). Eight speaker CD RTS radio with AM and even FM (two racks of presets, imagine that :P ), HUD display, chrome wheels, comfortable leather seats for me for 6 hour driving or more. Other people may find some other popular car seats adequate for their driving, but myself I didn't; but they're okay for other people with different heights and shapes.
Someone needs to get out more to check out what's been available.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
When my wife was shopping for a new company car in '06, she had the choice of a Ford 500, Impala, or Grand Prix. The GP was by far the worst, but the '06 Impala seemed to have less rear seat room than the '01 my wife had. Like you mentioned, the interior room W-bodies is really poor. Due to us being relocated my wife had to give up the 500 and a GrandPrix was already selected for her. We're counting down the days to get rid of it. It rides terrible, is uncomfortable, and the back seat is inhospitable. I won't ride in the back seat of a GP. My head will hits the roof and the rear window, I've road in compacts that are more generous.
While the 500 wasn't the greatest car in the world, interior room was very impressive. I can't tell you how many times we'd have someone or 6' tall in the back seat and nearly every time, they'd comment on how much head and leg room they had.
Funny you'd mention that, but I noticed it, too! While the '06 Impala was just a heavy facelift of the '00-05 style, I didn't think they changed it enough to alter the roofline, or any key dimensions, but evidently they did. The legroom was worse on the '06, and it seemed like I had to slouch down more.
The 500/Taurus is one of those cars that I really WANT to like, but just can't for some reason. I think it's just too boring, or something. I was impressed with the back seat legroom. We're talking 1983 Electra/DeVille class, here, maybe even better! But oddly, I found them a bit tight up front. The seating position felt high, but not very far back from the firewall. Sort of like a minivan or single-cab pickup truck. With that huge back seat and trunk, the car would make a perfect taxi.
When your wife had the 500, did she have any problems with it?
She only had it a little over a year. She put about 35k miles on it w/o any issues and it had the CVT. It was great for a company car, but I wouldn't buy one. Maybe the Taurus with 3.5/6speed would be better, they seemed to improve the exterior and interior. Just to many better alternatives. The Volvo based chassis was a nice treat compared to the W-bodies. Better layout and tighter build quality IMO.
I have a different experience. My '99 Sonoma 2WD Ext cab 4.3 V6 gets 23 combined/25 trip. My '01 Ext cab 4x4 Silverado 4.8 V8 gets 16 combined/19 trip at 70 mph. The little one is nearly 7 mpg better either way, but has 90k more miles on it. I don't do city driving enough for it to matter.
When I looked at base LS Trailblazers a year ago, sticker was 22 hwy for the 4.2 L L6. A rating that the 5.3 L Surburban did not have. My friend with a 5.3 gets 12-13 city in a Z71 ext cab. He still got 16 on trips to Vt. in winter, at 80 mph. I would expect 22 from the short Trailblazer 2 WD on same trip.
It is sad. That was a great name. My dad's favorite. I still remember our brand new 1956 Pontiac. Pink and gray. I seems like it was the 4 door hard top. We took several trips in that car before it got repossessed. We had one of those window box things with dry ice to keep us cool across the desert. Then when they had enough money my dad bought a new 1961 Pontiac Tempest. That was the end of his love affair with Pontiac. I think that GM had pretty much run their course on cars by 1960. I cannot think of any but the Corvette since then I would consider buying.
OTOH the Chairman of GM just publicly apologized for providing the US buying public with crap for so many years.
There is a disconnect here somewhere. I too had two 80's era GMs. The first was a lemon and had to be towed from our house at least 5 times leaving my kids stranded at home unable to get to school ( no bus service ) there. The dealer took back the vehicle if we'd buy another model Olds. We did - at a huge discount for our inconvenience. That vehicle went with the ex- and apparently lasted a good 10+ yrs. Good riddance to both....cars that is
I understand what Wagoner was apologizing about. I bought some of his company's crap.
Here we are picking on GM, and we have overlooked the Sebring - Breeze, whatever the name is these days. It doesn't get much worse than that. As bad as the Impala seems to me, the Sebring is much worse.......lowest grade cloth and plastic. I am certain the engineering is about 1965 level.
2 years ago we rented a Chrysler 300 in Florida. I know people who like these, but I don't get it. It was an AWD for some reason (in Florida?) and though it has a big hood right out of the 60s and lots of power, the steering was so loose I felt unsafe over 60mph.
IMO, D3 make cars by committee. Different divisions design different parts, then there is a search for the lowest bidder for parts, then it is put together with minimal thought. I often wonder if the presidents of the D3 have actually driven their own cars (probably sit in the back of a limo)....and even better, have they tried competitors cars.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Gauges are one reason I've usually preferred Mopar. They'd often give you full gauges standard...or at least more gauges than you'd get with a competing GM or Ford car. I think at one time, idiot lights were actually considered a luxury item, though. With gauges, the uninformed aren't really going to know what to look for, so if something's reading too low or too high, they might not notice until it's too late. But with an idiot light, when that sucker comes on, you know right then and there that there's a problem.
One setup I really like is what the 1979-81 full-sized Mopars used...full gauges PLUS an idiot light. That way, if you're not paying attention to the gauge, the idiot light will still get your attention. And I guess if one or the other fails, you have a backup. Still, even that setup's not foolproof. I've had three of those things now, first a '79 Newport and now two New Yorkers. And every single one had the habit of having the warning light for the temperature gauge come on when the gauge itself was reading normal. And it would do it at times that I know the car couldn't be overheating...like when it's first warming up, so I knew the light had to be lying! :P
Another thing about those dashes...the Accord is far nicer than the Impala, but the Accord is actually much nicer than the Cadillac. I also, don't like that cubby hole feeling of being seated down, and having to look up and over the dash as you do in the Impala.
And, the view you do get doesn't include the hood, so you have no idea where the front of the car or the fenders are. I feel sorry for anyone who has only driven D3 cars
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Bankruptcy Is the Perfect Remedy for Detroit
By TODD J. ZYWICKI
While Washington tries to arrange a bailout, the Detroit Three auto makers and their union, the United Auto Workers, keep insisting that bankruptcy would be the kiss of death. Not so: a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing will likely result in a stronger domestic industry.
To understand why, consider that the fundamental question to ask of any firm facing bankruptcy is whether it is "economically failed" or simply "financially failed."
If a typewriter manufacturer were to file for bankruptcy today it likely would be considered an economically failed enterprise. The market for typewriters is small and shrinking, and the manufacturer's financial, physical and human capital would probably be better redeployed elsewhere, such as making computers.
A financially failed enterprise, on the other hand, is worth more alive than dead. Chapter 11 exists to allow it to continue in business while reorganizing. Reorganization arose in the late 19th century when creditors of railroads unable to meet their debt obligations threatened to tear up their tracks, melt them down, and sell the steel as scrap. But innovative judges, lawyers and businessmen recognized that creditors would collect more if they all agreed to reduce their claims and keep the railroads running and producing revenues to pay them off. The same logic animates Chapter 11 today.
General Motors looks like a financially failed rather than an economically failed enterprise -- in need of reorganization not liquidation. It needs to shed labor contracts, retirement contracts, and modernize its distribution systems by closing many dealerships. This will give rise to many current and future liabilities that may be worked out in bankruptcy. It may need new management as well. Bankruptcy provides an opportunity to do all that. Consumers have little to fear. Reorganization will pare the weakest dealers while strengthening those who remain.
So why do the Detroit Three managements and the UAW insist that "bankruptcy is not an option"? Perhaps because of the pain that would be inflicted upon both.
The bankruptcy code places severe limitations on the compensation that can be paid to a manager unless there is a "bona fide job offer from another business at the same or greater rate of compensation." Given the dismal performance of the Detroit Three in recent years, it seems unlikely that their senior management will be highly coveted on the open market. Incumbent management is also likely to find its prospects for continued employment less-secure.
Chapter 11 also provides a mechanism for forcing UAW workers to take further pay cuts, reduce their gold-plated health and retirement benefits, and overcome their cumbersome union work rules. The process for adjusting a collective bargaining agreement is somewhat complicated and begins with a sort of compulsory mediation process. But if this fails a company can (with court permission) nullify the agreement. This doomsday scenario is rarely triggered, however, as its threat casts a large shadow over negotiations, providing a stick to force concessions.
Those Washington politicians who repeat the mantra that "bankruptcy is not an option" probably do so because they want to use free taxpayer money to bribe Detroit into manufacturing the green cars favored by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, rather than those cars American consumers want to buy. A Chapter 11 filing would remove these politicians' leverage, thus explaining their desperation to avoid a bankruptcy.
In short, Detroit and the public has little to fear from a bankruptcy filing, but much to fear from the corrupt bargain that is emerging among incumbent management, the UAW and Capitol Hill to spend our money to avoid their reality check.
Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University School of Law.
Now that you mention it, that was another thing I didn't like about the Impala when I looked at them. That high beltline made it feel like I was sitting in a bathtub, and made the interior feel claustrophobic. I guess it was a predictor of the times though, because everybody else raised their beltlines soon after. I think the '03 Accord did a pretty good job though, of still making the interior feel open and airy.
The Intrepid I ended up with has a lower beltline, lower dash, and feels more open to me than the Impala. But honestly, visibility is actually worse! I could see the hood on the Impala, but I can't with the Intrepid. I hate having to parallel park the thing, because the car's really hard to judge, and I don't do it enough anyway to be that good at it.
Excellent article pf, and it really says it all. A loan/or bailout do not address the real problem here, so the problem will remain...just take longer to drag out and cost us poor taxpayers billions. Chapter 11 would give these companies a chance to reorganize and hopefully be stronger than ever.
Are you trying to get us back on topic?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Also, when you default on a car loan, it's a bit different from a mortgage. They'll come and re-pop your car, try to re-sell it and recoup their losses. But say, if you owe $25K on your car and they only unload it for $10K, you're still on the hook for the $15K difference. And they'll try to come after you. If you're good enough at evading them, eventually they'll give up and just charge it off, claiming it on their taxes as a loss. But then, it's considered forgiven debt, which is counted as income, so the gov't can come after you and make you pay income tax on that charged-off amount! And your credit rating will still be screwed.
With a mortgage, there are ways to get off the hook for any negative difference like that. Your credit rating will still get messed up, but the bank is the one that ends up eating the loss.
As Andre said, the bankrupcy won't excuse you from paying off the loan...someone will collect. But, I was surprised to hear that 10% of all car loans are behind in payments now...that is a pretty big figure.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
That matches pretty close to those behind on their home mortgages at 9.7%. I wonder how many of those loans are being left as a result of deflated values. I know my home is worth about $150k less than when we bought it. And we paid $100k less than the guy before us paid. So that is a 1/3rd of the value lost in 2 years. But we love it here and you cannot replace this home for the current value. I see most homes in this area getting taken off the MLS unless they are bank owned. The banks are more anxious to sell than most home owners.
I still think that bailing out the construction business would help the economy more than bailing out automakers. It is all about paybacks to the UAW for support of the Democrats.
Blind adherence to the sacred principle of Japan makes a better car, factory, employee, town, warranty, and dealer hurts America and therefore hurts your neighbor.
GM's answer to high union costs of moving manufacturing out of the country has been their plan since 1981. The problem is the money owed to all those workers they have shed. Without them, and with themselves 50% transformed as they now are, they could already kick Japan's butt. Their products are fine. What they have in the pipeline is fine. A lot depends on OPEC.
http://tinyurl.com/eynp4
The slide of the domestic automakers market share has been as long as it has been dramatic. The combined GM, Ford, Chrysler U.S. market was 73.8% in 1980. In August, excluding the foreign nameplates, Detroit's market share dropped to 48.1 percent.
... that's not the fault of the current economic situation.
Another interesting read:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/110648-general-motors-natural-share-level-can-gm- - - - - - - -be-like-ibm
As I look at the GM numbers, they’ve actually done 22.3% of the U.S. market year to date. But when you look at their level of fleet sales and the very heavy level of incentive spending to move product, their natural share level is down in the 15 to 17 % range.
The author uses IBM as a great example. IBM used to be referred to as Big Blue. (We love to throw that BIG moniker around don't we?) Look at where IBM was, what they did, and where they are now. Their size is commensurate with their market share and despite what has transpired in the stock market over the last months, the share price is around 8 times what it was in 1993.
If your slot is 22% of the market, you can't be equipped and operate as if you're going to have significantly larger share, that is unless you like bleeding money.
"Key Plastics, which makes plastic parts such as door handles and other molded components for carmakers and suppliers, said it secured up to $20 million in debtor-in-possession financing to continue operating in bankruptcy."
Auto parts supplier Key Plastics files Chapter 11 (Idaho Statesman)
GM’s income statement clearly documents the problem. The company’s cost of goods sold in June was $36.7 billion. Its sales revenues were $38.2 billion. So, on average it cost GM nearly $0.94 to produce $1.00 in sales. This is the legacy of those fleet sales and incentive spending that Jerry York mentioned in his Bloomberg interview. Discounted fleet sales and heavy incentives largely were responsible for driving down the average revenue per vehicle almost to its manufacturing cost. In addition, GM’s spending on advertising, selling and administrative staff added a layer of enterprise marketing costs that were a little over $2 billion more than required at their natural share level of 12.7%
So, the idea is to cut all the excess spending and be content with 12% of the market instead of trying to be #1 at 22%. At 12% market share, GM could actually be profitable and GM could survive and lemko can buy a new Buick one day :shades:
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Supposedly the health care costs will be out of the way with VEBA (assuming GM had enough money to fund it, which it does not).
Disagree that GMs products are fine. GM needs HIGHLY DESIRABLE products to help reverse market share. Products that are going to sell in volume. Is that Volt? No. Is that Camaro? No. Is CTS going to do it? No. Is Malibu going to do it? No. Everything else is even worse. They have nothing in the pipeline that I've read about to compete with:
Fit (Ford is coming out with Fiesta)
Civic
Accord, Camry (Ford has new Fusion)
CRV
Prius (Ford has Fusion hybrid coming)
Those vehicles above are the bulk of the volume in the car market.
Let's examine the numbers,more and see if you still think so. GM had 22% of a 16M vehicle market or 3.52M vehicles; now you're saying they can go to 12% of an 11M vehicle market which = 1.32M. This is a 62.5% reduction.
So do you think GM with their current contracts can cut their expenses by 62.5%? Can they layoff UAW workers; or do they have to buy them out at hundreds of thousands of $ / per worker? Can GM reduce their pension costs 62%? What about their dealerships? And 62% of their suppliers can close, or reduce by that much?
The problem is the contracts that GM and its suppliers have is that it can't reduce these; until they get rid of the contracts. To get rid of the contracts they need to go bankrupt.
This is what I've been saying, and I'd do it for only $1M/year. :P
1. Declare BK.
2. Replace Wagoner with a more proactive and strategic CEO.
3. Void contracts.
4. Trim the lousiest 60% of the vehicles from the lineup
5. Shed costs like crazy - brands, staff, vehicles, liabilities, etc. Close and consolidate brands down to Chevy and Caddy ONLY
6. Design and build highly desirable vehicles with what is left.
Forget the old GM - that IS GONE. The new GM model would be like Honda - smaller, an upstart, build great and innovative vehicles. In 5 years GM could be strongly resurgent. The radical pruning HAS TO HAPPEN if GM is to be saved and be successful.
I believe GM has actually said, while Chrysler has only intimated, that the lights go out on December 31 if they don't have cash in hand on that date. That's only 2 little weeks away, can the government move that fast even when they are agreed they WANT to?
Me, I am still against a bailout, bankruptcy would do SO MUCH to fix these automakers's problems, and really it might only take the PROSPECT of bankruptcy for Cerberus to plow some of its cash reserves into Chrysler. It certainly shouldn't be Joe Taxpayer doing so for a company with that much money sitting around. They are just obstinately CHOOSING not to spend it on Chrysler.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
For GM to get their business down to 12% of the total market from 22% they would have to do a bankrupcy. They have to cut every possible expense. Feeding them more money will just be throwing money at the problem, and will only prolong the agony. Bankrupcy is the only way they can get out of dealership, pension, union commitments.
Added to Chevy and Cadillac they have to keep Buick going....a top seller and very profitable in Asia for some unknown reason. If they don't keep it going in the US it will lose it's appeal in Asia.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
So based on this forecast of even slower vehicle sales in 2009, does anyone here want to guess how quickly the automakers would blow thru $14B? or the $34B?
Also note that Johnson Controls, which it is stated is very large, has diversified from GM and autos, as they have foreseen trouble. They are closing plants whether GM goes BK or the taxpayers are saps and throw many tens of billions of $ away, before they are forced to fold.
I've got to admit; I believe the stuff has hit the fan in this economy. If the government chooses to use resources for the Big3, what it means is that they'll have less plugs to put in the other 50 leaks, we're having. I think this is most likely heading to a worldwide depression, and nothing is going to stop it. There are going to be more and more layoffs, foeclosures, credit card defaults, commercial mortgage foreclosures, further wealth eliminated in stocks and bonds ... You'll be very happy just to have any sort of job. This is the BIG hangover from the spending/debt party we've been on for many years.
Well, reliability ISN'T aside when it's on a hook, or being pushed to the side of the road. I've had the distinct pleasure of pushing 2 off the road, one in the rain (I'm a good samaritan). OK, they were Jettas, but still VW.
My '99 Ultra has some of the same gremlins you mention with regards to fit and finish. The instrument panel had an annoying squeak in it when you hit a bump because the trim was rubbing the IP. That was a 5 cent fix ( OK, I DID stick a nickel in betweeen to separate them). The power seat panel broke off the seat, and there are some pieces of seat trim that are unravelling. It does make me wonder, "THIS was a $40k car???" at times, but it rides like a dream, gets me good gas mileage for it's size (I've NEVER gotten less than 30 mpg on a long trip), and it's reliability has NEVER been an issue. The most expensive unscheduled repair I've had in 6 1/2 years was $250 for a mass air flow sensor. But it started an ran fine even then, just had the light come on, that's all.
What if I drive a German car made in Germany? If I lose my job, is that too bad too?
The fact is, I don't TRUST American autoworkers and prefer to buy cars that have a VIN # starting with either a J for Japan or a W for Germany. My mistrust of American autoworkers is probably misplaced for the good workers of Honda and Toyota, but the mistrust of UAW workers and Mexican assemblymen that had anything to do with my Dodge/Chrysler experience is certainly based on real work experience and direct association.
Why should I pay JOHN DOE in Detroit to use substandard parts from Mexico, China, and other cheap sources, then pay him to assemble it in a shoddy manner, when I can simply go to Toyota or Honda and get higher quality parts with higher quality build for less money!!!! Why should I overpay Americans that use substandard parts and perform in a substandard manner with their labor and skills. I'd rather CORRECTLY help pay Toyota and Honda workers who actually do a job well done! And they only require me to pay them fairly! What happened to fair?
There was nothing fair about my Big 3 experience.
Frankly, don't tell Honda & Audi this, but I'd find their vehicles to still be a compelling value even if there prices were suddenly raised 25%. I'd find Dodge and Chrysler to still be overpriced with 50% off.
my v8 explorer has averaged 16 in 6+ years.
And that is mine or any other American's problem because????
I don't care if you are upside down on your used car. If your resale value plummets, that's your fault for overpaying and buying a Big 3 clunker to begin with. I've been saying for years that they are 200% overpriced anyway, so a 50% discount is in line with reality anyway for anyone who has any sort of judgement on value. Most Big 3 cars lose 50% in the first day anyway.
As to people walking away from their trade-ins because they are upside down, I don't give a rats behind about the banks either. If they overloaned deadbeats too much money on a car that only has some value on paper from some guide written by humans, then that is their problem. An object is only worth what it's worth.
And your statements are false. Anyone caught in a claim from a wreck would not be screwed, just the idiots who bought Big 3 vehicles would be screwed; which, in reality, they already are if there car got totalled through no fault of their own. Another reason to get a Honda!!!! Case HIsotry: Civic totalled from rear end collision was 24 months and 25,000 miles old, got $17K + tax + registration back from Mercury Insurance and we paid about 18K +TTL originally when new.
Not too big of a hit, but with a Big 3 car, I'd of had to bring a big lawsuit on the perpetrator of the accident and his insurance company.
Car Buyers May Be Less Skittish About Chapter 11 (WSJ - supposed to be a free link)
LOL, not to defend GM, but what is Chrysler's reputation other than that of making nothing but :lemon: 's and gettng bailouts every 30 or so years from the tax payer? I don't think Chrysler has any reputation for anything good, unless you consider renaming a Neon a Nitro, or oops, a Caliber. Seriously, in all seriousness, if Dodge comes out with a vehicle called the Dodge Lemon, I'll buy it! At least they are being HONEST in advertising then!
Probably because most of the European makes are upmarket, and most people don't buy frills in a recession. Lexus is currently having the same problem.
Just the question asked in Does the current situation affect hybrid sales more?"
That is a reflection of the economies. Europe's in as bad a shape as we are. The author or I were not trying to say that the drop in sales in the U.S. is due to the D3 sales tanking. The problems of the D3 are mainly:
1) that they 're contracts have them locked into having so many employees, and so many retirees that they need a market of about 16M with a marketshare higher then they have now, to break even. But since we've dropped so fast, the D3 can't compensate and still have the costs of producing the higher amount of vehicles. They are therefore losing $ very, very fast. Companies that don't have UAW contracts and use temporary employees, can make cuts fairly quickly and fairly deeply, to match production with sales.
2) the D3 went into this economic downturn in a very weak financial position, having lost money for years, whereas many of the other companies have made and banked profits for years. Thus the stronger companies can wait for the weaker to fail, and pick up the failing ones market-share. That's a good business strategy.