Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Rocky
I don't know for sure, but I would doubt it. Which makes it a highly unattractive acquisition for anyone.
The best way for GM to weaken the union is to outsource the jobs away out of the UAW's reach and/or bankrupt the company and get the contracts into a court-ordered cramdown. I doubt that any firm would be remotely interested in acquiring GM without a bankruptcy or other serious cleanup measure that allows a fresh start.
The next generation workforce hasn't been hired yet. Honda could easily negotiate similar contracts that Toyota UAW plants have which include non-legacy.
Rocky
I disagree. As far as I can tell, the average middle-class American absolutely hates unions. (FWIW, I'm not one of them.) I don't think that any PR loss would be suffered if the UAW got stomped. If anything, a lot of people would probably think that "they had it coming."
But more importantly, the stockholders and analysts would be thrilled. Wall Street would love to see more competitive products and a dead union, and will reward GM handsomely if it can do both.
But if all contracts would be voided under law if the company were sold (I don't know how that works, but I bet that's NOT the case), then Honda could take what it could use and leave the rest (shut down or sell).
Imagine if Honda bought the works and killed the Corvette, Chevy with it! Whew, that would be a blow for the American car industry ego.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But yeah probably most americans could care less.
Rocky
Bob
General Motors Corp. Director Jerry York has backed away from his earlier recommendation that GM drop its ailing Saab brand, the automaker's Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said Monday at the unveiling of a striking concept coupe by the Swedish carmaker.
"I've spoken at length with Jerry York," said Lutz, referring to the board member who is a key aide to the automaker's third-largest shareholder, Kirk Kerkorian. "And he's off this get-rid-of-Saab thing."
Prior to joining GM's board earlier this month, York had urged GM to shed the Saab brand and consider dropping the Hummer nameplate to stem its huge losses totaling $8.6 billion last year.
"Saab is no longer an independent company that you could sell off as a unit," Lutz said.
He said GM had integrated the Swedish carmaker into its new global vehicle development system, sharply reducing the unit's costs. "It will be profitable soon," he said. "Of course we'll keep it."
"We left it independent way too long," said Lutz, who is GM's top global product development manager. "Three years ago, Saab had its own capital budget. They ran the business as if it didn't belong to General Motors.
Now, it's totally blended into the worldwide (vehicle) architecture plan."
So, what is your take on current GM offerings? What are the hits, misses, mediocres style-wise? What about the Camaro concept?
That being said, the THREAT of a strike is a very good idea. It helps ensure that the union can help strike, if not a good deal, at least an adequate one. But if they actually go and do it it would be a disaster.
I live in the Detroit area, but I have to say that the unions are just killing themselves PR-wise. When your average non-union worker is paying aound $300/month for healthcare (and more if, God forbid, they have to use it), they ain't going to be very sympathetic to someone whining about paying $50-75 a month. That's not to mention holiday time, job banks, etc. The union has been living in their own little world for too long.
When I was told by Suzuki that the Swift was returning to the US, I was somewhat excited by the CHANCE that we might get a version of the new Swift GTI.
One of these days, someone might offer a reliable, economical, sporty car for a reasonable price in the US. I'm not holding my breath, though.
I took a buyout two years ago after 25 years. Last job was 7 years at Buick as product manager on Lacrosse/Regal/Century. Worked closely with a number of design folks-Gamble/Lawles/Lyons/Manoogian/Burke and always loved being there.
Rocky, go to the website jibjab.com and play the 'Big Box Mart' video.
Bob
Chrysler had 5 from '55 to '61 (Imperial, Chrysler, Desoto, Dodge, Plymouth), 6 in '60 if you count Valiant. Ford had 5 from '58(to '60?) in the form of Continental, Lincoln, Mercury, Edsel, Ford). Evne the original plan for the big forth invovled 5 divisions (Packard, Clipper, Nash, Hudson, Studebaker).
While AMC is now history, Chrysler is back to its orignial two (Both were independent until Chrysler bought out Dodge in '28). Ford is back to the main three. GM once again has 5, two original (Cadillac, Buick), two add-ins (Pontiac, Saturn) and Chevrolet.
The standard today is considered 3, but is the room gone?
Ford was created to be the king of cheap. The theory was "The more cars you can sell, the cheaper it cost to build them, the cheaper it cost to built them, the more cars you can sell." Chevrolet and Plymouth were created to take a chunck of that market from Ford. This is the Scion, and Suzuki are aimed at, not Ford and Chevrolet. In fact GM has gone so far as to introduce 2 divisions below Chevy (Geo, Saturn).
Dodge was created to be upmarket of that. In other words, a car that people would pay a little more, for a better built car. Pontaic was pushed into the same market by splitting the differance between Oakland and Chevrolet. When Plymouth failed to break into the truck market in the 70's, Dodge was moved down market into Ford/Chevy land.
Cadillac and Lincoln were once high end luxury cars (think Rolls, not Lexus), but were moved down market to make more money.
Chrysler and Buick were the mainstream luxury cars, or "doctors cars". Where are they now? Last year Chrysler sold more cars than Dodge.
In short, there would be room if GM's 5 divisions covered a greater market then the ones the were once Pontiac through Oldmobile (maybe Buick) territory.
Well the current UAW members don't want to give up their dreams of retirement for the already retired. They look at it this way. Why should your [non-permissible content removed] be sitting at home collecting money and enjoying life while I gotta work 20 or more years than you. The Delphi members are going to strike no matter what the UAW says. Yes it will have catastrophic affects on GM and many many other automobile company's. But what are they suppose to do ???? Quit and flip burgers. Hello not many good paying jobs out their with less than a Doctorate. Come-on some of you if were in the same situation would be outraged your superiors are making millions, and he wants you to take 63% and $300-600 a month in health benfits move to the local trailer park. :confuse:
That being said, the THREAT of a strike is a very good idea. It helps ensure that the union can help strike, if not a good deal, at least an adequate one. But if they actually go and do it it would be a disaster.
They'd rather let the whole damn thing burn down, then settle for poverty. $12 an hour + $300-600 a month insurance = going from Middle Class to Peasant just is unrealistic. If they are going to destroy your life, might as well take them with you. I have no sympathy for the others affected. You made your vote last 04' election count and made them suffer with a president and congress that clearly doesn't give a squat about people that work in american manufactoring or avg. people for that matter. Now it's time for the UAW/IUE strike vote to trump your bad mistake. :mad: This is the only form of revolt left for Joe Six-Pack in this country.
I live in the Detroit area, but I have to say that the unions are just killing themselves PR-wise. When your average non-union worker is paying aound $300/month for healthcare (and more if, God forbid, they have to use it), they ain't going to be very sympathetic to someone whining about paying $50-75 a month. That's not to mention holiday time, job banks, etc. The union has been living in their own little world for too long.
So the UAW is suppose to suffer because people are anti-union and jealous because they have to pay more. The UAW is fighting for the common man. It makes me :sick: to hear some of the things said by less fortunate people. Jealousy is no way to be. You should be upset with your career choice to live with those benefits. Stand up and say "hell no" and form a union if your boss is putting the screws to you. The fact is everyone that has a good job knows it. Some are getting squeezed so badly they are losing cars, homes, etc.
I'm not bashing non-union people. I as a union member am fighting against the greedy and corrupt. We want to do what's best for this country and it's citizens, while doing our best for our employer so they make a profit. We want to form change. Our bosses at work support our union secretly. The more we make, the more they get paid. Everyone wins in the lower management to union employee.
Rocky
I'll have to dig it up. Some months Mr Insane Ego made a statement about Caddy and Lexus being the only big lux players in the future.
Do you ever react less than defensively to anything said about GM and its inept overpaid underworked legion of suits? It's kind of comical.
I took a buyout two years ago after 25 years. Last job was 7 years at Buick as product manager on Lacrosse/Regal/Century. Worked closely with a number of design folks-Gamble/Lawles/Lyons/Manoogian/Burke and always loved being there.
62vettefp,
Don't take this the wrong way bud, but why in the sam hell did you guys allow the Century and Regal to see the light of day :surprise: Who's to blame ?????
Rocky
As for the Century/Regal, you really can't blame the stylists and designers. They can only do so much, given restraints put on them by the beancounters to cut costs, and probably being dictated to recycle as many existing parts as possible.
Now to be fair, a Century/Regal wasn't a bad car...in 1997. They were just left to languish without enough updates, and stayed in production for too long. My Dad's '03 Regal LS isn't a horrible car. I think the basic shape of it is attractive, but they should've spent about 50 bucks more per car on the interiors. And paid a bit more attention to fit and finish. Its handling is also a bit sloppy, because it has relativel archaic 15x6 steel rims with 215/70/R15 tires mounted on them. But that, at least, is something that could easily be remedied.
My Dad's had the car for about 2 1/2 years now, and is still pretty happy with it. And heck, for the price, I don't think it was a bad car. It's amazing though how fast the prices drop. This sucker probably stickered for around $25-26K new, but my Dad got it for $10,995 used, at the end of the '03 model year, with around 19,000 miles on it. Heck, I told him that if he didn't buy it, I would!
Chevrolet was independent of GM at one time and was aquired like Cadillac and Buick. Pontiac was created by GM I think.
Funny but in the early 90's Buick was assigned the older crowd as it's primary customers. The Regal and Century and then the LeSabre were designed to have soft/soft rides and cushy interiors with conservative styling. Great reviews from our customers. In fact the only real complaints were from Regal owners who complained about the harsh ride. Of course Consumer Reports drove the base Regal and complained about the floaty ride. The next year the Regal was firmed up and we got more complaints and CR never drove again. If you have driven a Regal it has a very soft ride compared to others in it's class.
As far as sales. Could not keep up with demand for the first year. In their 2nd year the Century and Regal combined sold over 250,000 units with few fleet. The issue with the cars, as with all Buick, it took on even more the gray haired oldy image because that is what we aimed for and then the average age went up one year with every passing year. What really killed them was the decision to not spend any money on them. They were kept around about 8 years, twice what they should have been. Sales were just over 100,000 when the plug was finally pulled. They were great cars for their intended market in the late 90's but that market is just about gone.
****
GM doesn't fix these obvious areas. WHY NOT? We want a hamburger and GM gives us a bun and a patty - and tells us to go to the grocery store for the fixings(ie - aftermarket upgrades to make it acceptable). And don't even get me started on squeezing suppliers. OF COURSE the suppliers are grey-marketing the parts from China or elsewhere and stamping "USA" on them. OF COURSE they are churning out volume instead of quality. If you had a choice between breaking the rules(not that you could be fined or caught or even have anything happen to you if GM did) of your contract or going out of business?
Given that they have to teach ethics classes to MBAs... Yeah - good luck getting quality parts from people you are squeezing so hard their eyes are about to pop out.
****
"I've spoken at length with Jerry York," said Lutz, referring to the board member who is a key aide to the automaker's third-largest shareholder, Kirk Kerkorian. "And he's off this get-rid-of-Saab thing."
****
And this is also typical of GM. Listen to the whining bitchy shareholders and suits rather than the engineers and accountants.
Honestly. Face it - GM is nothing like it was when we were all younger. It's an apalling sham that's trying to prop itself up on past loyalty instead of making better cars. It reminds me a whole lot of the bums in D.C. right now. Nothing but double-talk and lies. The D.C. press at the meetings - they don't even question the statements anymore. They know they are being flat-out lied to. Chrysler was the same in the early 80s. Rosy picture. God-awful cars. It rightfully deserved to die. GM is no different. You either compete like your life is on the line(because it is) or you get ground under - that's the way business works here.
"just good enough" isn't ever going to get my money, be it door hinges and lightbulbs, or houses and cars.
With the unveiling of the Corvette based Saab Concept , it's obvious Lutz, like Waggoneer thinks they can sell 7 different cars brands,each offering the same model(s) that are all built off of 2 to 5 platforms.Corvette will suffer in it's next remake if it has to meet standards for a Cadillac version, and now possibly a Saab version? I suppose it's possible, others are doing in on a smaller scale, but GM stands alone as the company who does the absolute poorest job of making the variations look much different. For years it was the Japanese cars that lacked a corporate look. Now it seems GM can't find a sustainable "look" for any of it's brands except Hummer & Cadillac. (Both seem to reply of the semi-sculpted stick of butter approach to styling)Bill C.
One time I gave him some data for a product intro and he did not belive me. I had to get the chief engineer of powertrain on the phone to talk to him. Never got any kind of thank you or sorry for doubting from him.
I can name a couple only:
Equinox/Torrent (early demise of Aztek, will not be around long)
minivans (giving up on market and getting what they can, Pontiac/Buick vans will be gone in 6-9 months)
Full size SUV's (no excuse-they chould look different inside and out)
I cannot think of any others, can you?
Is there a list of Lutz quotes out there? I swear, I am not making it up.
Sounds like he has some personal issues, too.
The Corvette was remade for 2005 to meet Cadillac's standards. The XLR is selling about as well as the Allante did, so perhaps by the C7 design, the XLR will go away, replaced by a new Eldorado.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
All of the original GM cars were actually independent at one time, until bought up by GM. Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Chevrolet, and Oakland. When that "companion make" fad was all the rage, Pontiac was created as a junior companion to Oakland. It was the only "companion make" that would survive, as Marquette and Viking were almost born dead, and LaSalle's usefulness was over once the great Depression was over. It gave Cadillac dealers a cheaper car to sell without actually tarnishing the Cadillac name. Packard did not fare so well.
I think Oakland's last year was 1932.
I assure you that neither Toyota nor Honda will buy this largest piece of money drain the industry have known. The only desirable part of GM is the truck division. However, it is unlikly that UAW would agree to lay off everyone except 50% of truck builders.
If there is indeed a buyer, I guess it would be a Chinese company, such Chery or Geely. They could benefit from established market share and mature technology, just like how the Chinese Leveno bought IBM's PC division. These are advantages for the Chinese, but not for the Japanese, since they have better.
FYI, GM is really cheap now, its market cap is about 5% that of Toyota. So, a Chinese manufature can buy GM with no problem if they can secure a loan from their state bank.
http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/history/gmhis1900.html
http://www.gm.com/company/corp_info/history/gmhis1920.html
the webpage allows one to choose other years
Rocky
LINK: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/11411451591397113022/index.php
SOME MEMORABLE QUOTES:
---------------------------
It probably seemed as good a time as any to ask Maxi Bob about Board of Director member Jerry York’s call to axe Saab. "I've spoken at length with Jerry York," Lutz said. "And he's off this get-rid-of-Saab thing." Thing? Calling the Turnaround King’s strategic recommendation a “thing” is so condescending it probably qualifies Lutz for a British knighthood. More importantly, Maximum Bob’s summary dismissal tells you all you need to know about Saab’s future, and it ain’t good.
------------------------------------
If you want to know why GM makes such a broad range of substandard products, why they can’t or won’t build a truly magnificent Saab, there’s your answer: centralized power and control. The ends of the The General's vast Empire fight against the center-- and lose. Can you imagine the difficulty Saab has-- I mean would have had-- sourcing a seat bracket? Can you imagine the difficulties they would face if they tried to make a NEW seat bracket? Theoretically, the GM corporate mothership helps each brand achieve its goals. In practice, The General’s overarching bureaucracy sucks the life force out of everything it touches, until all its vehicles are as bland and lifeless as a Pontiac G6.
The opposite of corporate synergy is GM. The “global architecture” that makes Lutz’ heart beat that little bit faster was designed by the company, for the company. Putting as many models a possible on the same platform using the same bits will reduce each brand’s unit costs, but it won’t enhance each brand’s character or the consumer’s pleasure. In fact, Saab never stood a chance against the legions of GM pencil pushers, bean counters and union reps: people who couldn’t care less if a Saab looks, feels and drives like an Opel as long as its sales, marketing and production don’t violate GM’s corporate practices. Creativity need not apply.
---------------------------------
There is almost nothing I disagree with in that article..
Igor
When FoMoCo announced platform Sharing with Volvo and Mazda, I saw dooms day coming.
But the C1, and CD3 platforms are ajust aobut the best platforms around.
C1 cars just about dominate EUDM .. the Focus and Mazda3 duo makes everyone eMse play catch up, including Golf and GTI... Corolla is dead in the water in Europe..
Ford surprised me by they way they share components, yet manage perfect distinction between F/L/M on one side and Volvo and Mazda on the other...
GM should learn from them, how to nourish foreign brands... Ford has revived all orf them, except for Jaguar (which is on the plate now).. and Ford has done it with minimal sacrifices to the brand image.
Igor
It would be enormously difficult to integrate the cultures of the two companies in that they have been so different. Honda would be better served to modestly expand their business and offerings in coming years rather than to take on company rebuilding. Didn't BMW get into a huge mess with buying and trying to reform a British car company (Rover?) losing billions in the process? One would think that BMW would have been smarter than they were.
Also, does Honda have that much spare cash? Whatever cash they have on hand is better spent in R&D.
Or they could negotiate something somewhere in the middle and still be able to support their families. There's a big gap between $26/hour + free benefits and $12/hour and $300-600/month. Split the difference: $20/hour and $150/month. But the sad fact is that the days of $26/hour and free benefits is over and is never coming back. And while I agree that American CEO's are overpaid, even if you took all their wages and bonuses down to zero it would barely be a blip in the big cost picture.
Even if Honda did have the cash, I doubt it will consider taking over GM, or a major part of (whichever comes first).
So all the talk of GM being bought is very interesting speculation....the truth is, I don't see it possible.
Now....all that being said......"keep an eye on left field!"
To put into persepective the image that Cadillac and Lincoln had between the wars is difficult by modern standards. Lincoln didn't turn a profit a single year during this period, and was never intended to. Fords and Mercurys made money, Lincoln was a "halo" car. Cadillac wouldn't sell to minorities during this period as they felt it would be bad for thier image. :surprise: