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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
GM hasn't run its fuel economy test yet, but in a previous release from the General, it expects the ZR1 to be the most fuel-efficient 600-hp vehicle on the market. Juechter did say that the ZR1, "will be somewhat less [fuel-efficient] than a Z06," which is currently rated at 15/24 by the EPA, "and we expect a small gas-guzzler tax [on the ZR1]." Production will be limited to 2,000 units each year for worldwide consumption and pricing will be revealed sometime this month.
Corvette crash
-Loren
Either way, Ford canceled that meeting. The company is now planning a September meeting in Detroit -- a meeting dealers hope will provide a definitive answer to their question.
If Ford says that Mercury will not be killed, dealers want to see the products to back that up. The problem is that other than a hybrid version of the Milan and a freshening of the conventional model due out late this year, there are none. On the other hand, if Ford admits that Mercury is dead, it would deal another blow to the brand's sales and invite lawsuits from dealers.
"It's clear that there is no new product for Mercury," said analyst Jim Hossack of AutoPacific in Los Angeles. "The plan is not to kill Mercury. The plan is to let it die."
The difference is significant, he said.
In 2000, General Motors Corp. unveiled a plan to phase out its Oldsmobile brand over four years and spent about $1 billion paying off dealers and suppliers as a result. But Chrysler LLC, which simply stopped producing Plymouths after it merged with Germany's Daimler AG, managed to avoid much of that cost, Hossack said.
When Mark Fields took over as head of Ford's North American operations in 2005, a review of Mercury's viability was at the top of his agenda. At the time, Ford concluded that the cost of eliminating Mercury exceeded the cost of keeping it, given that the rebadged Fords being sold as Mercurys required little in the way of re-engineering.
Dealers say Ford already is cutting back, particularly when it comes to advertising. And many dispute the idea they can survive as stand-alone Lincoln stores.
Several, like Dave Knittel, general manager of Charlotte County Lincoln Mercury in Florida, say Mercury sales still account for more than half their overall sales volume. He thinks Ford is trying to force Ford and Lincoln Mercury dealers to consolidate.
"It's planned obsolescence for us," he said.
But do you think he was really going 150 mph when he slid sideways into the back of that rig? It's hard to tell from the video, but it looks to me like he whacked it maybe only doing 20-30 mph faster than the truck. Still, that fool's lucky to be alive!
I just looked up some tests the Michigan State police did for 2008. Results are as follows:
2008 Crown Vic 4.6, 3.27 axle: 129 mph
2008 Crown Vic 4.6, 3.55 axle: 120 mph
2008 Chevy Impala 3.9 V-6 (dunno what axle ratio): 142 mph
2008 Dodge Charger 5.7 Hemi: 148 mph
2008 Dodge Charger 3.5 V-6: 132 mph
And finally, (this is kinda scary, for something this size)...
2008 Chevy Tahoe, (engine not specified, but I'm guessing the 5.3 because it can run on E85): 127 mph!
It was Crown Vics chasing that Corvette, right?
That's no proof.
How would 08 vette handle a head-on with a Lucerne, or a Malibu, or another vette?
With ordinary car, and metal fenders and front end, there is a crush zone to absorb part of crash. Isn't vette body all fiberglass? Wouldn't that just break up and disintegrate? Would be interesting to see video from IIHS doing an offset head-on with dummies in vette. Unless vette had a cocoon tub like used in IRL Indy cars, driver and passenger perhaps exposed to significant intrusions and injuries.
maybe not a tub but they have a full metal rail structure.
DETROIT -- General Motors is nearing a deal to buy Cobasys LLC, the troubled supplier that makes batteries for the automaker's mild hybrid vehicles, three sources have told Automotive News.
Problems at Cobasys, of suburban Detroit, hurt production of Saturn Vue and Aura mild hybrids and led to a recall late last year that affected 9,000 vehicles.
1. the local dealer lowballed me on the trade in value ($8,000, when the car is blue booked at $10,000)
2. after weeks of deliberating, GM offered me only $1,500 as a loyalty bonus, and improperly dated the check so that it was already expired before it arrived. I now have been waiting over 4 weeks for a new check to be sent. I have made over 40 phone calls to the RAM in Detroit, who refuses to keep scheduled teleconferences, nor return my or my dealer's phone calls.
3. I have already ordered a new Pontiac Vibe from another local dealer. It should arrive next week, yet my loyalty check is no where to be found.
Is this how GM treats all its customers? While it is not too late to hire a lawyer, I tried my best to give GM the opportunity to do the right thing. A misdated $1,500 check and no support to get the local Chevy dealer to do the right thing does not seem like good business sense to me. GM: my new Pontiac Vibe will be delivered in about 7 days. You still have time to do the right thing! Jim -Alexandria, VA
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2. the $1500 check is GM's problem
The dealer that did the work on your Malibu clearly made some mistakes. I certainly would not want to deal with them again. I assume that the mis-dated check was sent back :confuse: - if sent back, did you send it to the right place :confuse:
Back in late 1990, Buick advertised a rebate on the 1991 Reatta. The problem was that the 91 Reatta was not in production at that point in time. They were waiting to get as many orders as possible (about 2000 in the end) before building any. My dealer had ordered one as a demo, then sold it to someone, who gave up waiting for it, and I said if I could get all of the incentives I would buy when it finally came. My dealer got Buick to agree over the phone, there was nothing in writing. It all worked out.
Another point: My 2002 Seville had a solenoid fail in the transmission. My Chevy-Cadillac dealer "fixed" it, but as I was driving it home the transmission shifts were clearly not quite right at times. I went back and they checked it out and found that they (the dealer, not GM) had put the wrong gasket in.
Now that one I went insane on GM, the dealer could not have known or been responsible for this. Next example, got a new 1977 Corvette, at about 4300 miles engine starts smoking. Take to my dealer, they replace the upper engine, I hit the street again and after 26 miles, the entire engine seizes up and locks dead bang. Now GM admittedly didn't make a great engine for the original problem, but the dealer really screwed up in the totally improper repair, so that one I made the dealer make it up me.
I respectfully submit that your problem seems to lie with a lousy dealer, not GM although your problem with GM Customer Service would send me off the wall with their seemingly total lack of caring in their Customer Service. I hope the situation ends well for you.
"DETROIT — General Motors is in preliminary talks about a possible merger with Chrysler, a deal that could drastically remake the landscape of the auto industry..."
The only plausible reason for this is that amidst the credit crunch, GM is desperate to get their hands on Chrysler's cash. But is taking on all the headaches worth the cash that is sitting around there? Or does GM really want to get out of vehicle and mortgage financing so desperately they'll take on Chrysler?
GM has little if not nothing to gain; Chrysler, however, has everything to gain; they get access to GM's alternative fuel technology, GM's platforms, and GM's engineers.
GM's best interest is to get as far away from Chrysler as they can; they can't be distracted by another 3 distressed brands.
The only way this would work is if there were massive overhead savings, and Chrysler and Dodge could be closed relatively painlessly and cheaply. Of the 3 brands, the only one probably worth saving is Jeep.
Later, they bleed twice as fast!
My money is it will not happen.
Regards,
OW
The only reason I could see a foreign automaker buying Chrysler is to get access to US factories and the dealer network, which could still use some trimming down.
In the event of a buyout, will the UAW contracts transfer to the new owners, or must both parties start a new round of negotiations?
One, GM wants that $11 billion cash pile that Chrysler has amassed (primarily from not investing in the business). GM is burning cash at a frightful rate - if it keeps this up, it will be bankrupt within 12-18 months.
Second, GM can claim that a merged company is "too big to fail," which makes it more likely to gain access to government largesse, especially if Senator Obama wins in November.
Three, GM doesn't want a competitor (read - the Chinese or the Indians) to gain Chrysler's engineering and styling staff, factories and dealer network, as the U.S. market is already plagued by overcapacity.
This will probably end up like the Studebaker and Packard merger. Studebaker was essentially bankrupt by early 1954, so it merged with Packard, sucked up what cash it had, eventually closed down its factories and headquarters, and staggered on for another decade in the American market.
Look for GM to give Chrysler and Dodge rebadged versions of GM cars and trucks, give Chevrolet a rebadged Chrysler minivan, slowly whittle away dealers, and close down as many factories as it can get away with under the Obama Administration. (I wouldn't be surprised if his administration uses our tax dollars to buy out UAW workers or provide for their retirement. Since the UAW supported him, it is more likely to accept strong medicine from his administration. He can sell it as, "GM has to close down these factories and get these workers off its payroll if it wants to survive. At least my administration will do X, Y, and Z to ensure that they aren't thrown completely out on the street. This is the best deal that your union workers are going to get.")
The big winner? Ford, which will keep working to bring out new designs (Fiesta, redesigned Taurus and Explorer, next-generation Focus, unibody Explorer) that people actually want to buy, instead of focusing on how to merge two sick companies.
Since there remains a strong contingent of diehard "buy American" types, if they they want a more modern, up-to-date vehicle from an American company, they will increasingly have to turn to Ford. Chrysler is basically dead at this point (remember that Cerberus hasn't been investing in the business), while GM is almost bankrupt and will likely be distracted with the nightmare logistics of this merger.
RWD platforms / vehicles:
With the 300/Charger/Challenger would there be a need for a G8?
How does Challenger fare against Camaro and an upcoming Pontiac Coupe?
How would this regulate the FWD models, would there still be a need for a Buick?
Corvette - Viper? SRT - SS?
Minivans:
Agreed, this would finally give GM a proper minivan, though I did like the Astro
Trucks:
Keep the Ram. I think this would help the case, maybe hurt, in that the Ram does offer a full-range right now, from everyday work truck up to fully-loaded luxo-barge. How would this pair with the Chevy and the GMC, Cummins diesel and the Duramax? And if the full-range is kept, which vehicle(s) go, Chevy or GMC and / or which options? Same with the SUVs.
What about the Sprinter, do they keep this seeing as though GM is pretty much out of the Class 4 and up trucks.
And with Dakota, GM can finally put the awful Colorado/Canyon to bed.
Jeep:
This can slide right into Hummer's spot, with controlled cost and a broader, gas-friendly appeal.
Saturn:
Maybe this can take the place of the Sebring & the other mid-sizers from Dodge and Chrysler. So you gain those potential buyers. Or leave these to fleet sales.
But on the other hand
Would merging really make a difference in their futures, making for one strong company or accelerating their downfall? Consolidations hardly ever go smoothly - who goes in terms of personnel, locations, manufacturing, product. Then there's the integration of systems, ideals, personnel and the like.
With a pairing up, what of consumers who wouldn't buy a GM product or a product from anyone tied to GM, and vice versa? A coming together doesn't guarantee increased sales and savings.
What would this actually be, another supposed "merger of equals" or an actual one buys the other?
Cerberus just wants GMAC - how does this play into things?
Maybe Chery would be a better fit?
Just some thoughts.
I do agree that GM is looking at that short money, considering their $1B/month burn rate. And if this stays pat, they would suck Chrysler dry in less than a year, add in the $5B they hope to raise through financing and your looking at 1.5 years roughly, or 2010. And it is 2010 they believe the skies will clear and everything will be peaches and cream. I'm thinking rotten tomatoes. :sick:
May I ask how Ford can be a winner when it's barely hanging on by a thread? The Cerberus deal to get Chrysler was about as dumb as Kerkorian buying those millions of shares of Ford using his casino holdings to back the bet. And with Ford seriously thinking of shopping Mazda (which is host to most of Ford's platforms) and Volvo...
I thought about picking up Ford stock for a short bet but it's not really worth it.
Their administrations will be the devil in the details that will represent the decisions going forward, not these guys.
This GM/C deal will melt away sales and put the merged company at approximately 20% market share if they are lucky. Toyota, et al, will eat them for lunch.
Take a look.
Toyota Motor Corp.'s China car sales beat General Motors Corp.'s in the first nine months of the year, as the Japanese company threatens to end GM's 77-year reign as the world's largest automaker.
GM's loss of market share in China, where it has ranked second among overseas carmakers for a decade, along with slumping U.S. demand may cost it the global sales crown. Last year, it beat Toyota by 3,100 vehicles worldwide.
Global Leader
Regards,
OW
"I understand GM want to get rid of GMAC and Cerebus has had enough of the car business but what will GM do with Chrysler? I also understand talks have stalled because of the economic crisis...and GM stocks is at its lowest since 1950. "
Just for clarification, post on dtown ! GM does not want to get rid of the 50% of GMAC they own. That is the sticking point as much as the tight credit conditions.Cerebus wants to purchase the 50% they don't own and GM is holding fast. GMAC is pretty much where GM is earning any profit. Otherwise they have been described as a health care benefits company that as a sideline also manufactures automobiles. Latest word is that Cerebus has been in discussions with Nissan . GM wants Cerebus to close all plants and just keep the brand names. Kerkorian has thrown in the towel on Ford and Tracinda has sold all it's shares.
Tough times in motown indeed.
" This GM/C deal will melt away sales and put the merged company at approximately 20% market share if they are lucky. Toyota, et al, will eat them for lunch. "
You may be ultimately right but from what I've been reading a GM, C merger would give them 36% of US sales and qualification of too big to fail status. This is their last shot and they better get it right. I do not argue the rest of your theory regarding international but if they excel at fuel efficient vehicles they might survive post this recession. But to gain access to the $25 billion, they have to of course survive.
regards,
OW
Agreed. Heck, simple arithmetic is too much for these guys and their administrations, as well as the current crop of crooks!! But all like the "too big to fail" scenario this could make.
Anyway, this GM/C tie-up, deal, merger whatever you want to call it is bad all around. Just from the obvious overlaps in product, dealers, personnel shows this would fail.
Glad you posted that article. What's funny (sad maybe) is that GM and the media are always touting how they are soooo strong - in China. What they never post is how they are failing everywhere else, and now in China too. They are just too short-sighted and one-minded. They go from one thing to the next, like with when the blinders were put on for the SUV-Truck-Monster Truck (Hummer) phase, then the China is our savior phase.
This merger does not make sense for GM. Other than Jeep and the minivans, there are no Chrysler vehicles that are better than what GM already offers. You can argue against the minivans since the market for these vehicles has dropped dramatically over the past decade. Are they that desperate for cash to pull the trigger on this deal? Also Cerebus would have a hard time justifying closing plants since they are sitting on $11 billion dollars. The UAW would crucify them at the buyout bargaining table (and should). I just don't think GM can successfully manage this transition. It will burn up the money they get from the deal. GM management already screwed up the Oldsmobile shut down and ruined Saturn. History is not on their side.
I read this morning about Renault (Nissan) being interested in a piece of Chrysler. this makes more sense than GM since they already have a partnership and Renault has cash reserves.
Not sure what to make of Ford. They had been strangely quiet up until Kerkorian sold his shares. Big loss for Ford. Two directors also resigned recently. Now Mazda is on the selling blocks and Ford is getting some nibbles in Japan. If Ford can sell Mazda and Volvo, they may have shot at making it. Their recent products are doing well (Fusion, Focus, Flex, etc.). I was pleasantly surprised with the Focus I rented last week. The only negative was the very small back seat. No one over 5 could have sat behind me whereas the Civic & Elantra a smaller adult could.
Here's the scary part. Analysts are saying that even with the horrible sales this year, Toyota is now projecting 8.5 million sales worldwide (down from project 8.85 mil) and a profit between $10 - $12 billion dollars (not sure if this is net or gross).
The US auto industry is in some serious doo doo.
Any disdain expressed in that post would be more towards UAW leadership than a President Obama. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
UAW leadership would realize that any deal offered by his administration is likely the best one available, so they would grudgingly accept it.
They may not like it, but they would accept it, whereas they would probably go ballistic if a McCain administration offered the exact same terms. Why? Because the UAW would believe that McCain is out to stick it to the union. Much as conservative anti-communists were willing to trust Nixon and Reagan when they negotiated with the Soviets or Chinese, but were automatically distrustful when whenever the Carter Administration met with them, regardless of the result.
Ford wins by having an actual plan for recovery (bring over European Focus and Fiesta for small-car buyers; revamp Fusion and Mustang for 2010; completely restyle Taurus to address car's main shortcoming, its deadly dull styling; and replace current Explorer with lighter, more efficient unibody model). The most important of these models are scheduled to appear within 12-18 months. Plus, Ford's cash position is better - it nailed down lines of credit BEFORE the current credit implosion. A big part of GM's problem is that it failed to do this, and now can't get financing.
Ford has also done a better job of cutting costs, and its relations with the UAW are much better than the union's relations with GM. Ford had competitive operating agreements with most of its UAW locals prior to the most recent contract. GM was way behind in this area.
And Ford's new leadership is working to change the corporate culture, which is the real problem dragging down these companies. The Detroit mindset is killing them. This is where GM has really failed.
This doesn't mean that Ford will survive. It just means that Ford actually has the best shot. Think about it - if this merger happens, for the next 1-2 years, GM will be working to absorb Chrysler. Ford meanwhile, will be rolling out the Fiesta, revamped Fusion and Mustang and completely restyled Taurus. Which is more likely to bring buyers into the showroom, even in a depressed auto market?
My worry with Ford is that they may not be around in current form for the 2010 model year. It's almost similar to the GM-mantra of "Just wait until you see what we got coming up next..." Unfortunately anything can happen in the next 12 - 18 months, and with KK pulling out the millions of shares the other day, and verbally saying he would most likely pull the rest, that's not good for Ford. Many backed Ford based on KK having those shares and the "vested" interest. But with this move, Ford strongly thinking of putting its interest in Mazda up (which underpins many of their F/L/M cars / CUVs), many may not want to purchase a FOMOCO product. I don't see how a GM & Chrysler hook up would positive effect Ford staying around as it's not like GM nor Chrysler are going to shut the doors and leave the market to Ford for a few years. Plus there will still be other makes introducing new or updated products in this time frame as well.
Agreed if GM & Chrysler merge up that their not going to have shared product right away and expect nothing coming of the deal for at least 3 years as they will be dealing with the consolidation and house cleaning. And as I stated earlier, with Ford on the ropes and this GM / Chrysler fiasco, those few that are in the market for a vehicle may be going to the Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai.
And GM may not be able to continue to bet on China:
China Not So Cheap Anymore
Ford can cut some costs by closing Mercury, reducing themselves to 4 divisions: Ford (mass market), Lincoln (premium/fleets), Volvo (premium), and Mazda (sporty/imports). I think Ford could even safely close Lincoln, leaving Ford once again with three brands- Ford, Mazda, Volvo.
GM and Chrysler are another case altogether; while Ford is almost on track, especially after the sale of Jaguar/Land Rover, the combined company would have too many divisions; I think the resulting GM/Chrysler should be:
Chevrolet (mass market), Pontiac/Buick/Jeep (sporty/premium/SUV), Cadillac (luxury), Saturn, and Saab. GMC, Dodge, and Chrysler should simply be closed. The only thing worth salvaging would be the Jeep models (excluding the Compass) and the minivans, which could be rebadged as a Chevy (Grand Caravan) and a Buick (Town & Country).
I would also argue that GM could even spin off Saturn and Saab, selling the combined dealer network and production facilities (GM Spring Hill and Trollhattan) to a new owner. This could raise some cash in the short term, and I've always seen more synergy between Saturn and Saab than between either brand and the rest of GM. Plus, a foreign brand seeking to come back to the US (Renault, Fiat, whomever) might like the smaller, leaner dealer network that Saturn/Saab provide. The only obstacle to a spin-off is that it goes against the current policy of further integrating Saturn and Saab into the rest of GM; GM wants Cadillac-Hummer-Saab dealers right now, making any spin-off of Saturn and Saab far more difficult.
I guess we know now why they made such splashy anouncements last week about electric cars "in the pipeline" - they had to have something to make Chrysler look at least slightly attractive to a potential buyer, knowing how quickly they would need it off their hands. This automaker is going to be at the point very soon of being dead in all but name.
And once that happens, who will sell the rental fleets 75% of all their cars and trucks?! :-P
There isn't a CHANCE that the purchase of Chrysler will improve GM's long-term outlook, in fact there isn't a chance it won't hurt it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM Job Cuts
I think the rental car companies are just going to switch to Hyundai, Toyota, and Nissan for their fleet needs. Lately, I've been seeing quite a few more Hyundais, Toyotas, and Nissans available for rent...