General Motors discussions

stever

"An analysis of consumer shopping trends by Edmunds.com, parent of AutoObserver.com, shows Chrysler buyers would likely go to GM vehicles if Chrysler simply went away, as GM vehicles are high on the shopping lists of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep shoppers. "

The World Without Chrysler As We Know It -- And the Road Kill Left Behind (AutoObserver)

dtownfb

Here's an interesting article featuring Dan Quayle about the possible Chrysler-GM merger. You may say, "who gives a darn, what he has to say" but Quayle is the current chairman of Cerebus Capital LLC. It doesn't go into much detail about the merger but does give a window into how Cerebus operates and why they want out of the auto industry so bad.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/10/20/daily57.html?b=1224475- 200^1722544&ana=e_abd

lemko

...I would probably go to Chrysler. If both go away, I'd have nowhere to go. Ford or the imports? Yuck! That would be like choosing between lima bean or brussels sprouts flavored ice cream!

stever

You could almost read Quayle's comments as saying that Cerebus could buy GM and combine the two in-house.

nippononly

Now there's a nightmare scenario - Cerberus running both GM AND Chrysler! They have done such a good job so far, of course...

kernick

Wow - Dan Quayle is head of Cerberus? I had no idea - but that certainly raises my concern of the government continuing to support and get involved with these guys (Big 3)!

I wonder how much $ Cerberus has donated directly, through affiliates, and its executives have donated personally to the presidential and congressional candidates of both parties. I'm getting more and more concerned that everyone in our political system is bought and paid for.

stever

In spite of his reputation, Quayle isn't dumb. If I were at Cerberus, I'd be much happier having him around than Nardelli.

Cerberus contributes plenty of money to the RNC, according to the DailyKos, and that rumor mill hints that there will be investigations into the hedge fund if Dems take over since Cerberus (through IAP Worldwide) has lots of fingers in war related pies, like subcontracting with Halliburton and they were thick in the Walter Reed Hospital mess.

daddysangel

Lurk mode off.

In Sundays Indystar.com/markets maybe an article.
The print version in Section D--Business headlines: "FADING FUTURE".
"Specter of a merger with GM could lead to the dismantling of Chrysler and devastate Kokomo's work force, 5,400 of whom are employed there."

You may be interested in putting a human face to your corporate entity dialog.

Last paragraph: "We have Cerberus looking like they want to unload Chrysler. It's a shame. We have made impressive improvements in our quality and have got some pretty good product." said Jeff Everett, president of United Auto Workers Local 1166 in Kokomo. "I've been telling my people all along we've been going through a storm. We just have to make it to the other side." Star Reporter: Ted Evanoff.

This article does mention some of the points you and others have made about the dollar sign over Chrysler's figurative head, pension funding and potential buyers if The General fails in "this" merger.

As a sidebar, My dad worked and retired Metalworkers union and I've worked RailRoad union in Indianapolis, Indiana.

You should be able to read the body of the article and its cited statistics for yourselves either online or in hard copy.

The bar's open for your continued discussion.

Daddysangel.

Lurk mode on.

stever

Scary stuff about the potential loss of pension benefits too.

Here's the link btw:

Fading future</A

kernick

Scary stuff about the potential loss of pension benefits too.

The government has that Pension Guaranty plan, but I doubt it would cover 100% of Chrysler's amount, or the health care.

This is why most of us have probably heard something along the lines of - I'd rather have $0.50 in cash today, then a promise of a $1 in the future. I think it was a good idea when the companies were strong, but not looking so good today.

Depending on how any merger, sale, or bankrupty goes, it will be interesting to see if warranties are valid. If someone buys any of the Big 3, I would guess they would like to wash their hands of warranties on a couple million vehicles.

So people who bought a Chrysler warranty with that Lifetime Powertrain warranty might wish they had some rebate-cash instead and a regular 6yr/100,000 warranty.

grbeck

I would be surprised if Cerberus isn't donating to the Democrats, too. Big companies usually like to hedge their bets.

Don't doubt that the Democrats would investigate Cerberus after the November elections, as that will distract attention from the actions of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that contributed to the current real estate and banking mess...

stever

I would be surprised if Cerberus isn't donating to the Democrats

You'd think so but nothing is showing up in the last couple of years. Not much given to Republicans either though. FundRace. Nardelli and Quayle gave a bit.

In more GM/Chrysler news:

GM to kill full-size SUVs! (going with Chrysler's Jeep SUVs?)

Chrysler to eliminate 25% of salaried workers (less baggage to give to GM?)

andre1969

GM to kill full-size SUVs! (going with Chrysler's Jeep SUVs?)

I dunno if that's a good move...I've heard that Chrysler already stopped production of the Durango and Volare Aspen. I think the Jeep Commander got the axe as well, so that would leave the Grand Cherokee as the biggest SUV that Mopar sells.

I'd actually be shocked if the full-sized, truck-based SUV went away completely, but I guess it's possible. IIRC, back in the day, before the SUV boom, the Suburban used to be good for about 50,000 units annually. The Suburban shares most of its architecture with the crew-cab pickup truck, and now the Avalanche, so it seems to me it wouldn't be expensive for them to keep offering one. Ford never got much of a following with the Excursion, and I don't think the extended version of the Expedition is doing very well either, so the Suburban just seems like the champ in my book.

But it wouldn't be the first time GM completely left a market, just like they did with minivans, ponycars, and old-school full-sized cars. And I guess it is conceivable for an entire market to completely disappear. For instance, in 1976, I'm sure nobody would have thought that what passed as a full-sized car at the time would become extinct in just a few short years, but after 1979 they were. Heck, even their downsized replacements are pretty much extinct. Once the Crown Vic and its siblings finally go away, they will be.

stever

I'd actually be shocked if the full-sized, truck-based SUV went away completely

Me too - I bet they keep one factory building the current style Suburban while things shake out more.

kernick

Getting to 2012 is THE problem.

How do you think GM gets to 2012, given their current sales in this recession, and the fact that they are losing over $1B per month? If you say "cuts", then please explain how despite cut after cut (over the years) at the Big 3, they have, and are, continuing to fail financially.
Combining GM and Chrysler may slow the losses, but Chrysler is losing money too (I'd guess $200M-$300M/month? given their market-share and low sales numbers). And the fact is GM and Chrysler have costs that don't go away - pensions! "Cutting" means that those costs are spread over less vehicles - each vehicle then has more pension cost in it.

I guess you can't expect these CEO's of the Big 3 to put on anything less than a positive face, as that's what they're paid to do. If they said they will try a few things but it looks like time has runout, then they'd be canned. So you'll see these execs saying everything will be okay until the 1 day when you hear they have filed bankruptcy. If you don't believe me just check the history of any of these large firms that have recently failed. They knew weeks and months ahead they were going down, but kept smiling so as not to panic the investors, suppliers and customers.

daddysangel

lurk off/

Thanks, Steve, for setting up a link to the newspaper's on-line article.

Daddysangel.

lurk on

aspesisteve

"I am surprised that it all collapsed so quickly; I thought the process would be a bit more drawn out"

Management has a way of painting a rosey picture to the public, share holders and employees when the ship is rapidly sinking. They still take out full page ads in the newspaper to tout all the "green" technology that's coming.

I wonder if GM spent as much on innovation as they did marketing if they'd have a Prius for the masses?

georgecavalier

I don't see how a merger would be good for GM besides eliminating a competitor. I don't think Chrysler really has anything to offer GM. The only two markets (full-size RWD car and minivan) that Chrysler participates in that GM doesn't aren't exactly growing. Since GM is larger and in better shape, I can see how that might work for Chrysler in terms of factories, dealer network, and vehicle platforms. I'm not an investor or anything so maybe there's something I'm not seeing but I just don't think it is a great idea.

dtownfb

Since GM is larger and in better shape, I can see how that might work for Chrysler in terms of factories, dealer network, and vehicle platforms. I'm not an investor or anything so maybe there's something I'm not seeing but I just don't think it is a great idea.

i don't think GM is in better shape. GM needs cash fast! Chrysler (Cerebus) has it. Supposedly, Cerebus is sitting on $10 billion (as of June 2008). Cerebus realizes they are in over their heads and want out of the auto industry.

georgecavalier

Cerberus has it but since they are trying to get rid of Chrysler I doubt that GM will see any of it. The reason that I'm saying GM is in better shape is mostly because they are not owned by another company while Chrysler's fate hangs in the balance of what Cerberus wants.

Karen_S

Would you be more or less inclined to buy a car from GM-Chrysler? Or buy a brand under that umbrella when uncertain if it may eventually be cut?

georgecavalier

It probably wouldn't change anything for me. I'm a GM fan now and always will be, even if there will be a few Chryslers in the mix. As soon as I pay off my Cobalt in 2011, I will be looking at a Camaro. Since I will be looking at buying a Chevy, I wouldn't have to worry about that brand being discontinued as it is GM's best selling brand. I can see the Pontiac/Buick/GMC lineup being dropped. On the Chrysler side of things, I think it's a little harder to tell. Besides the LX cars (300, Charger), the minivans, and the Wrangler, there isn't much that Chrysler offers that GM doesn't already have in one form or another.

nippononly

I wouldn't be more or less likely to buy a brand knowing it may eventually be cut, but I sure would be more cautious about buying anything from GM-Chrysler. I would be very concerned that the rampant quality problems at Chrysler would be bleeding over into GM....

Just when GM is beginning to turn around its quality and reliability rep it is going to take on Chrysler, which has one of the worst reps in both regards in the whole industry? Why would they INTENTIONALLY harpoon all the hard work they have done?

dtownfb

I think you bring up a very good point as does georgecavalier. I think the fact that GM-Chrysler are exploring this merger tells me how bad the situation really is at GM and how bad Chrysler wants out of the auto industry.

One good thing happened overnight, they are reporting that the government has turned down giving funding for the GM-Chrysler merger. Of course this is based on unnamed sources. I'm glad someone in the government finally got some sense and realized you can't use tax-payer dollars to support a merger that will likely result in 40,000 loss jobs.

It looks like Chrysler is going to plan B (which should have been their first plan) and starting to talk to Renault-Nissan again.

Source: AutoNews - 10/31/2008

georgecavalier

I wouldn't worry about Chrysler's quality problems. I think GM would be the more dominant of the group and their better quality would spill into Chrysler. But besides Jeep, I couldn't see Chrysler's divisions hanging on for very long anyway.

stever

"We believe a transaction between GM and Chrysler is likely because it would be the most expedient way to protect cash and jobs at both companies," Rodriquez added. "If one or the other company were to fail, we would face a much bigger calamity - the collapse of the North American supply base and the potential endangerment of all three Detroit automakers and businesses that depend on them."

Grant Thornton on GM-Chrysler deal

dtownfb

The merger won't go through without government financial support. right now, the Bush administration is not willing to give them money toward a merger (something I finally agree with). The $25 billion is for plant upgrades related to fuel efficient vehicles. This request is considered over and above the $25 billion.

I think Grant Thornton is correct in his analysis but Cerebus' best course of action is to continue to explore partnerships/buyout with Renault-Nissan. GM does not need the burden of consolidating the Chrysler lineup. Plus there are some obvious holes in Nissan's NA lineup that Chrysler can fill and vice-versa. GM should sell GMAC to Cerebus for cash. Last I checked they were in business to sell cars, not mortgages. Then use the cash to jump start a true turnaround within the company. This time with everything on the table to be cut including management. No one should be safe.

bvdj84

How many cars is GM honestly trying to put on the road? I am a little confused on what their motto is? Taking Chrysler is only going to be a good thing or bad thing. Getting the name back into shape or taking the cheap route and do nothing, but just add another line up to the already packed company. Therefore adopting another company's problem, dragging them down. Never been really impressed with Chrysler, but they do need help. If GM can do this, while re-evaluating their overall look and line up. Considering quality and sales figures of each car in the company, the could perhaps re-design the line up to a more appealing look. I feel GM has its quality cars, but has several cars that are just dragging the company down. I know all company's have their cheaper cars, but GM has several of them. They are all just duplicates of one another. We do not need 2 SUV's that are the same, but different names. I feel that is a bit greedy. I feel they need to work of the Caddy name, the new malibu name, cars like that. Bring all their cars up to code, looking at each part, seeing if they could be improved, all the way down to the window switch. Doing this will give the car a more quality look. I feel GM really needs to focus on their engines, and especially their transmissions. Hopefully they can help Chrysler with their transmission issues too.

Anyway, this can be a good thing for GM if you think about it, but at the same time, this needs to be a reality check for GM, they need to evaluate themselves of where they are at, and if they take over this company, than they need to go in strong or they'll go down. Downsize its company too, get rid of some of the brands that are dragging them down, such as Pontiac, with the G8 being phased out, they won't have anything anymore, the G6 is getting old.
Verdict: GM needs a change, perhaps this could help, 50/50 chance.

farout

With 200,000 jobs at risk, and many more jobs that support production parts, this is even more dangerous to the US economy.

Cerberus has said they had no intentions to sell Chrysler LLC. from day one they said this. I am so pissed off at GM and Cerberus, they are anti-American and cares only about the dam dollar, hell to those who have worked for years and get dumped. I am not a GM or Chrysler worker, I am just a person that hates to see the rich slobs trash can "Joe the Plumbers" and other hard workers.

I emailed Cerberus,why not join me and express you rage as well?

farout

stever

The Wall Street Journal reports that talks have ended between Chrysler and Renault-Nissan. And they also say:

"Cerberus, which took over Chrysler in August 2007, pledged that it would not "strip" the cost out of the company and then "flip" it to a new buyer. The auto maker's executives said Cerberus wanted to return Chrysler to its former American icon status. That all seemed to disappear as rising gas prices combined with a softening economy impacted sales as consumers continue to delay or even skip their automotive purchases."

(registration link?)

Also of interest in the WSJ, is this headline:

UAW Retains Ex-Assistant to Wagoner as Advisor

dtownfb

here's the article:

DETROIT (Reuters) -- Talks on a deal to sell Chrysler LLC to Nissan Motor Co. and Renault SA have halted because the No. 3 U.S. automaker's owner favors a deal with General Motors, The Detroit News reported today.

Citing sources familiar with the situation, the newspaper said no further talks have been scheduled between private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, which sees a deal with No. 1 U.S. automaker GM as financially more advantageous and better for the struggling U.S. auto industry.

In an earlier report, the newspaper said the Nissan-Renault alliance had proposed buying 20 percent of Chrysler.

A spokesman for Cerberus declined to comment.

Earlier this week Nissan-Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn dismissed reports of merger talks with Chrysler as speculation, adding that it did not make sense to risk cash in the current economic environment to form a strategic alliance.

GM and Chrysler have been in talks on a possible merger, but according to sources any deal will have to wait until after the U.S. presidential elections on Nov. 4 as the Bush administration ruled out providing government funding for it.

Reading between the lines, Nissan-Renault only wants 20% of Chrysler. Cerebus wants completely out of the auto industry. A "merger" with GM accomplishes this.

I hope the governement does not support this merger by financially backing it. No way tax dollars should be used to support a merger where potentially 40,000 jobs will be lost.

circlew

GM and Chrysler should be allowed to go bankrupt. Period, the end.

They got themselves into this mess and now it's time to pay up. Unions included.

The ignorant
create their own agonies
when they allow
their desire, greed and hatred
to turn the fiction in their minds
into the reality of suffering.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Regards,
OW

stever

40,000 jobs will be lost

I've seen the 40,000 number just for lost Chrysler jobs but I think Farout's 200,000 jobs at risk number may be more realistic - there's 50,000 supplier jobs at risk for example if half the Chrysler workforce is let go. Big numbers and big economic impact either way.

If there's no merger, all the Chrysler jobs could disappear.

skw0123

If the point of the merger is for GM to get access to Chrysler's lines of credit, which are reputed to be in the $12B range, GM would have to find some way to operate (or shut down) Chrysler without just burning up this cash. Selling off assets won't work because nobody has any money and I'm guessing pulling the plug would cost billions. So I'm not sure what this merger is about.

My guess is that there really is no business case unless its actually a cover for a government-sponsored rescue of GM (which will have to happen by the end of the summer to avoid an implosion of GM). If the government isn't in, it could be curtains for Chrysler and GM.

(I do not really believe that GM will be allowed to fail, but it is going to get massively restructured if it is bailed out...)

circlew

If they apply our government money to bailout either one, you bet the structure will totally different than today.

Here is the business case for the new entity in N.A.:

Make less products that are better than the rest at a profit. Design the products to be high performance and efficiency for 3 major categories of cars, 2 S-Cuv, 1 truck.
6 models should do it, probably 4 platforms at most.. Then, structure operations for those platforms. All models should achieve 20 mpg - 40 mpg.

Any questions?

Regards,
OW

georgecavalier

What if you were in charge of GM? What vehicles/divisions would you change or discontinue? You can even discuss the people who run GM and what changes my be needed there, UAW, etc. I bet the average citizen could run GM better than those bean counters!

georgecavalier

As far as management, I would put more car lovers in charge... those who know what worked in GM's glory days. Someone does need to keep an eye on expenses but I don't think the consumer should suffer because of the cost cutting I would create more focus groups to make sure we get it right the first time. I would look at what the competition is doing in the future not just what they have out now. It seems that right now if GM benchmarks something it is only the current model. ABSOLUTELY NO CHRYSLER MERGER!

Buick: Discontinue and make the Enclave (with styling revisions) the next Escalade.
Cadillac: Since the CTS name is already popular and well-established I wouldn't change it but I would rename the STS, SRX, XLR, and DTS with classic Cadillac names.
Escalade: Should be redesigned on the Lambda platform as the current model is not what most buyers want right now.
XLR: This model has so much potential... Cadillac should make it a more serious performer.
Chevy: This is GM's strongest division and it is heading the right direction but it could still use work.
Avalanche: Perhaps a smaller midsized companion?
Aveo: Redesign the ugly hatch. Add a more powerful engine option and bring back the "Special Value Model."
Cruz: Excellent looking car but dumb name. Keep Cobalt name and add a sporty coupe. Keep the SS version alive. Add Hybrid version.
Colorado: Redesign with current Silverado looks. Replace 5-cyl and V8 with 4.2 6-cyl as a economy/power compromise. Add a 6-cyl diesel.
El Camino: Instead of G8 ST.
Express: Redesign on current Silverado frame. Make as space and fuel efficient as possible with maybe a 6-cyl diesel and possible hybrid.
HHR: Add AWD version.
Impala: Give it RWD and add 3.6 DI engine and keep the V8 for SS model.
Malibu: Add a two-mode Hybrid.
Traverse: More attractive styling.
GMC: Discontinue. With the way the market is, GM doesn't need two divisions selling a full truck line. More attractive Acadia styling could be used on Traverse.
Hummer: Discontinue. With sliding popularity due to fuel prices and the economy there is no place for this division.
Pontiac: This division should be used as RWD budget BMW competitor.
G3, G5, Vibe: All replaced by Sunfire, a compact RWD/AWD coupe sedan and wagon. Add Hybrid version.
G6: Return of Grand Am name. Redesigned as RWD/AWD car with same body styles. Both 4-cyl and V6 available including 3.6 DI. Add Hybrid version.
G8: Renamed Bonneville. Wagon version added but no truck version.
Grand Prix Coupe version of Bonneville with retro styling.
Saturn: Leave as a Volks-fighting division selling rebadged Opels.Combine Saturn and Saab dealerships.
Astra: More performance models. Add Twin Top convertible. Add Hybrid version.
Aura: Add a two-mode Hybrid.
Zafira: Perfect Mazda5 fighter.
Saab: Merge with Saturn. This will give GM a bread and butter Euro division and upscale Euro division.
9-5: Much needed redesign. A bit larger and more powerful. Possible coupe version.
9-4x: 5-seat crossover larger than Vue with 4-cyl turbo engines.
9-6x: 7-seat crossover that shares ONLY the platform with the other Lambdas. Unique engines (turbo 6?), styling and handling. Priced more upscale than Outlook.
Roadster: I know Saab enthusiasts have been wanting one for a while but I'm not sure if this would cannibalize Sky sales.

ehaase

Declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy and eliminate all divisions except Chevrolet and Cadillac.

Chevrolet's lineup would be Aveo, Volt, Cruze, Malibu, Silverado, Suburban, Traverse, Equinox, and a small Aveo based crossover.

Cadillac's lineup would be Alpha based car, CTS, SRX, and Escalade.

donnielsu

You guys look like your in the know.

Any idea what the GM incentives on the '08's will be come 11/4?

I was attempting to buy an '08 GMC Sierra 1500 Crew cab truck on Friday. The dealer tried to scare me as I was leaving by saying the current incentive ended that day (10/31). I see on the GM website that it ends 11/3. Do you guys think it would likely go down on 11/4, stay the same, or go up?

georgecavalier

I have a feeling there will be more incentives this year. I bought my 07 Cobalt on 12/31/07... it was a leftover 07. It had an MSRP of 414,500. After all of the incentives (Red Tag Sale) and $1,000 for my trade, I stole it for $10,300. So in other words, I think you will still be able to get a heck of a deal on it... especially since its' a truck.

baveux

They got themselves into this mess period and I agree with Circlew.

No matter what, they need to build a better product, they need to support their product, the product must be more appealing than what the competition is offering.

Its that easy, they can pump as much money as the want in GM and Chrysler, if the customer dont want their product thats it, they will diseapear.

And now that the unions are pi....g in their pants its the time to rework their wages agreements and other goodies. That need to be done in a dictatorial way. They make concession or they disapear. No time for romance there, only finance matters.

lemko

Buick: Definitely a keeper in my GM. No more "cheap" Buicks. North American Buicks would be finished more like the Chinese models - more of a Lexus than a present day Buick. Love the Invicta concept and the next LaCrosse would follow in this direction. LaCrosse name is troubling. Propose low-end LaCrosse be called the Special, mid-level the Invicta, and performance model be called the Super. Heck, bring back an aggressive RWD/AWD all-black model called the Grand National and get Buick back into NASCAR. Buick's got to do something about the geriatric image it's acquired over the last 20 years. Change Lucerne line-up. Low-end Lucerne would become the LeSabre and the high-end Lucerne would be the Park Avenue on longer wheelbase. LeSabre to remain FWD while Park Avenue would be RWD/AWD. Restyle both cars with bold Buick styling. I would love to see somebody bring back the aggressive sweepspear profile with the "Darrin dip" at the B-pillar. Present car looks too much like a Passat on steroids. Keep Enclave.

Cadillac: Keep CTS as it is already a winner, but don't let it rest on its laurels. Make STS closer in size to the 1998-2003 Seville STS. As it is, it looks too much like the CTS. Get rid of FWD DTS as it is an anachronism in today's Cadillac. The new car will be on a large RWD/AWD platform. DTS should be renamed. Low-end DTS replacement will be the DeVille. High-DTS replacement will be the Fleetwood. No compromises. This car should be equal or better than the Lexus LS460 and Mercedes S-Class per luxury and build/material quality. Keep Escalade pretty much as it is. The SLR takes care of the smaller SUV segment. Agree with earlier poster that the XLR has the potential to be a serious performer. Not that the Corvette platform holds it back, but maybe it has its limits.

Chevrolet: Kill the HHR. The PT Cruiser is passe and so are its imitations. Per the Impala, Agree with earlier poster - place it on a RWD platform with 3.6 DI engine and keep the V8 for SS model. Styling should be much more Impala-like. Current car looks too much like an Accord on steroids. Low-end car should have four taillamps and be called Bel Air. Fleet special should be Biscayne. Upper end cars will be Impala with six taillamps. Perhaps a luxuriously-trimmed car called the Caprice? Agree with earlier poster about other cars. Should keep the Volt much closer to the original concept. The proposed production car looks like the second coming of the Lumina! Ugh! Should build hybrids of Aveo and Cobalt. Kill the stupid Cruz name.

GMC: Kill.

Hummer: Kill.

Pontiac: Really troubled as what to do with Pontiac. Really feel there should be a new Firebird/Trans Am based on the Camaro and I saw a really nice proposal by somebody at Carlisle this past summer. G3? G5? Get rid of these stupid clones - badge engineering at its worst. Keep Vibe. Wouldn't rename G6 the Grand Am because the name seems tainted. Perhaps Tempest? LeMans would be nice, but hopefully people have forgotten that 1980s Daewoo monstrosity. G8 is an excellent car, but the name sounds too much like a coordinate in "Battleship." Perhaps rename it the Bonneville.

Saturn: Another problem child. Evil side says to kill it. Good side says allow it to live selling rebadged Opels.

Saab: Sorry, iconoclasts. GM should either sell or kill this division.

nippononly

the current administration won't financially support the "merger", the first time ever I think when Bush and I are in agreement, but it sounds like both major presidential candidates are for the idea. So in 2 months GM will have all the government support it needs, at least from the executive branch.

Time for me to begin my letter-writing campaign NOW to my congressional representatives....

fintail

I don't see a problem with any of those ideas. I like bringing back the old names, too.

kernick

Time for me to begin my letter-writing campaign NOW to my congressional representatives....

Since Congressmen get so much correspondence, I believe Congressmen have installed software that checks a database and sorts their e-mail by a list of $-contributors.

Since this give-away will be sold to the public as a loan, and it isn't much $ compared to what's given away now, and it'll be claimed that these factories and workers will never work again (when there will still need to be THE SAME demand for cars), the American public won't get upset.

euphonium

I would start planning for war production. :mad:

farout

In the fifties and into the sixties most vehicle makers used one body, but has upgrades to it, Likethe Chevy Biscane, 210 or Bellair. and the Impala. Worked pretty well and I think it kept prices lower. The huge "added features" like heated seats, airconditioning as standard, every vehicle has carpet, CD player, and the list goes on. There needs to be a "basic vehicle" that not only competes but offers a better quality then these Korean small death traps.

I remember when Toyota first came our and the Suberu, these were relly cheap in cost and had very sparce insides, but got great mpg. If Ralf Nader would have kept his stinken nose out of GM's Business, the Covair was a really good car, at a very affordable price.

There is clear stupid thinking when cars use to get 30+ mpg and then when the EPA says these cars must not emit but some amount of smog and the car drops down to 23 mpg. Does this make any logic? The less gas used the less smog is what I think. It is dumb when we see a Chrvy Aver and it gets 25mpg! Can you explain why a small light weight Aveo with a 4 cyc. engine only gets 25 mpg? Our Chrysler pacifica AWD that weighs 4,600 lbs gets more than 25 mpg on the freeway. Something is really screwed up here. There is no reason for these not so Smart Cars to get 41 mpg and the best we can do in the US is 33 mpg?

The auto industry has made some serious erroes in judgement in trying to keep raising the bar with adding so many "add on's" to make more profit, they have priced themselves out of the working mans budget. It well might be time to get back to some basics.

farout

fezo

I'd be sure my golden parachute was all set....

nwng

yep, ch 11 and setup two divisions : GM cars and GM trucks. Seriously, what's the difference between a slade and a suburban aside from a few option packages? Plus when you start over, you need to be as efficient as possible to lower your overhead. Limit your number of engine choice and packages, as long as you have a handful of good ones. Act as if you only have 15% of market share.

I do see someone buying the whole corvette production line, and perhaps viper as well.

lemko

What stays? What goes?

Well, if I had to start over and could only keep a few vehicles what would they be?

Here's what I'd pick:

Buick Lucerne/Cadillac DTS
Cadillac CTS
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Impala
Chevrolet Malibu
Chevrolet Silverado
Pontiac G8

The Lucerne/DTS and Impala would only be kept around on a temporary basis until I could come up with something better. Everything else would be tossed either for good or for fresh new designs. I would not want to see the Corvette production line bought up by some outsider because I would not want to see any abominations cobbled together from Corvette parts and various others like some of those Avanti cars that have come and gone over the decades since Studebaker's demise.