They need to focus on excellent, high volume vehicles, as nobody is going to support the world's largest car company on a plugin at $40K or a V8 muscle car!
Yep. High volume and "profitable". GM is in same straits as you or I when in bad financial straits. I, we, jettison, superfluous such as cable, magazines, expensive cell plans, weekend restaurant meals, etc. For GM, anything not high volume and not profitable must go. This might include Solstice, Camaro. The only thing to hang onto would be Corvette for image.
But, what about legal entanglements with Saturn, Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealers? Apparently, GM cannot just kill a brand without serious legal implications.
You don't kill those brands, you just give their dealers rebadged Chevys, thus avoiding any complaints about GM not supplying them with product.
I didn't say to copy them exactly. Notice I did say .../LS/... meaning I wanted Lexus reliability though I can't complain about my DTS' reliability so far.
To summarize: I want distinct Cadillac styling and character I want a level of luxury equal or surpassing that of the S-Class I want performance and handling equal or surpassing that of the 7-Series I want reliability equal or surpassing that of the Lexus LS460
By MarketWatch Last update: 10:31 a.m. EST Nov. 8, 2008Comments: 7 SEOUL (MarketWatch)
Hyundai denied on Saturday a wire service report that it has been in talks with Cerberus Capital Management LP about buying Jeep or other assets from Chrysler LLC.
A Hyundai Motor spokeswoman said the carmaker isn't considering acquiring Chrysler's Jeep brand and other assets because it is focusing on completing its overseas plant construction. 'We have little room for acquisition of an overseas company such as Chrysler,' said the spokeswoman.
Citing people with knowledge of the discussions, Reuters reported Friday that Cerberus is looking to renew talks with other potential bidders like Renault SA (and Nissan Motor Co."
To summarize: I want distinct Cadillac styling and character I want a level of luxury equal or surpassing that of the S-Class I want performance and handling equal or surpassing that of the 7-Series I want reliability equal or surpassing that of the Lexus LS460
Are you willing to pay $15k to $30k more to get your wishes? The bottom of the line S550 is about $35,000 more than the Caddy DTS.
Are you willing to pay $15k to $30k more to get your wishes? The bottom of the line S550 is about $35,000 more than the Caddy DTS.
the Challenge: Can the US make better cars for less?
The Genesis might not be better than the Merc S550 but I'll bet a new entity that arises out of the ashes of the current industry will be able to provide excellence once again. Right now, the DTS Perf. costs $60K...now all you need to do is beat the S-Class with a new design and premium parts.
what on earth Hyundai would get out of a Chrysler deal, except for the Jeep brand.
Hyundai already makes, on average, more reliable cars than Chrysler, not to mention Hyundai doesn't have the mess that's called the Chrysler Sebring.
Nobody has anything to benefit out of Chrysler. Why doesn't Cerberus just sell Jeep and a few assembly plants, if there are buyers, and then declare Chrysler bankrupt and close it all down quickly?
I hate to bad mouth a Chrysler brand, but Jeeps are not as good as the name would make you think. I had three Liberty's 2 gas and 1 diesel. The diesel was bought back by DCX as a defective vehicle. However We have had great service from 3 Dodge Neons, and 4 Caravans, and two Dakota's and our Chrysler 2007 Pacifica AWD Touring.
I believe you may well see GM go belly up before you will Chrysler. Remember the employees are still interested in a employee buy out...if the price were right. As far as vehicles and how they are made Hyundai has made great strides in improving their vehicles. However even this year there are many short falls in quality that will eventually come up in quality, but a Hyundai still has a huge dump in value over a 3 year period. A Korean car is still just a Korean car. For me I will stand by Chrysler, Ford and GM because I believe in supporting American workers as much as possible. (note..I include Mexico and Canada as Americian) Few would argue that the Windsor plant is not one of the best plants for quality fit and finish. However GM's plant in Kansas has a poor fit and finish. (my opinion)
Have you driven a Sebring of 2008 or 2009? For the money this is a great car, (all except the 4 cyl engine) I think Cerberus has made some good improvements in quality, but they like everyone else wants a greater return on their investment. The Automobile industry is not a good investment right now no matter what company you have your money invester in.
Should you go to a dealers only auto auction you would not believe how little a vehicle brings today. Cars with 8,000 miles and 1 year old bring less than $ 7,000. Trucks and SUV's are so low you can't believe it. The Korean cars bring even lower return at an auction.
Cut Chrysler and Cerberus some slack, after all GM is the one who cant survive beyond January with out a bail out. (by the way I do support the bail out for the US auto industry) after all we did bail out the crooks and thieves how started this mess by selling worthless paper on subprime loans, and if we v=can help crooks we certianly can help the back bone of our economy, the auto industry!
You have more faith in Chrysler vehicles than I do. I agree that the Jeep lineup has been tainted. I think everyone is interested in the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee, not the Liberty. I've attended our local auto show in harrisburg, PA the past two years and there is nothing in Chrysler lineup that I found appealing. Just sitting looking over the interiors made me wonder why anyone would want these cars. I wouldn't even want test drive any of these vehicles.
I can't cut Cerebus a break on this one. They knew what they were getting into when they bought Chrysler last year. THey wanted to invest a little money and get everythign in line a for a buyer. They were never in it to build great cars. They wanted to make money on their initial investment. The risk didn't work and they want out. Why should the government bail Cerebus out? Find a buyer (Nissan), even if it is at a loss, and sell Chrysler.
Did I support the bailout of the financial industry? No. But remember this potentially affects every single American in one way or another. Whereas with the Big 3, we are talking about 3 companies. Once their values diminishes more or they declare bankruptcy, there will be compnaies that buy Chrysler, Ford or GM.
nippononly wrote : "Now there's a nightmare scenario - Cerberus running both GM AND Chrysler! They have done such a good job so far, of course. " Misconstrued I'm afraid. The merger has been obstructed because A) Gm wants C's 11 billion of cash and want's to idle C while retaining their brands. Cost to the state of Michigan , 45-50,000 jobs with ancillary impact but hey, better one than three. Cerebus holder of 50% of GMAC wants to buy the remaining 50%. Gm a health care benefits company that happens to manufacture cars and trucks as a sideline has refused, since this is the only profit they make, despite losses from housing. C) Any deal needs government money since credit is crap. Deal is confused but Pelosi/Reid seem amenable to some advanced loans. Perhaps even double the $25 billion alternative/ efficient fuel bailout. All running out of cash quickly. Innauguration too far away. Help ! I need somebody Help! Not just anybody. Working , will advise.
dtownfb wrote : "Did I support the bailout of the financial industry? No. But remember this potentially affects every single American in one way or another. Whereas with the Big 3, we are talking about 3 companies. Once their values diminishes more or they declare bankruptcy, there will be compnaies that buy Chrysler, Ford or GM.
We still can buy steel in this country. "
Sir, I respect your posts, but let express my angst how the so called rebel republicans to my shame opted for a Newt Gingrich moment while simultaneously rejecting their President, their Treasury Secretary, their Chief of the Federal Reserve,and their own Party . Now granted Paulson is actually a liberal from Goldman and possibly Wall St could have resolved it on their own, but when the stakes got raised by making it a bill and the Fed Chief says this is urgent. What part of urgent didn't they get? Main street, Wall Street three bags full. Does not Main Street have a 401-k ? An Ira ? A 529 ? In that one sad week of Sept. 29th we saw, financial hysteria take root, McCain who previously has a slight lead over Obama fall to a 10 point deficit and the makeup of Congress changed. Oh, I almost forgot, a cyclical bear confined to one year to a secular bear much longer. It's the economy stupid and voters voted with their 401-k's. So by my count we have 132 morons in the house.Some democrats were equally stupid, but not the majority of the no votes. Since it is moot, I'll share with you what Bernake swore congress to secrecy. The majority of US debt is held by foreign central banks. It is rather unwise to cast aspersions to the credit quality of US financial system. They knew this yet chose still to grandstand. May the Lord have mercy on their souls . Jackasses one and all. C was looking to merge with Renault, Nissan would be a definitive upgrade. Hell , even Yugo. Was the bill poorly styled ? No doubt. But America needed affirmation at that moment and it was sadly lacking.
Farout, you rock! My city wouldn't be the crime-infested cesspool it is had all those well-paying manufacturing jobs remained. Philadelphia was once called "The Workshop of the World" and many fine products were made here from Stetson hats to locomotives. About the only things manufactured here these days are crack rocks and blunts. Maybe these domestic bashers will wake up when all of America becomes one vast violent rustbelt ghetto and they're too frightened to leave their homes.
Actually, the quality of the parts aren't exactly as good as the S-Class, but they are getting there. They're definitely better than those in my 1994 Sedan DeVille and better than those in my 2002 Seville STS.
I think Cadillac should follow the same formula Lexus did. Offer S-Class quality with better reliability for less.
What kills the Genesis IMO is that it's called a HYUNDAI Genesis rather than just a "Genesis." The anonymous styling and that grotesque grille don't help. I don't think a "Toyota LS400" would have done as well. It might be well-regarded as was the Cressida, but nobody would take it as a serious luxury car.
I totally agree and am for the bailouts. While I was never a big fan of Chrysler (GM guy), they do make some nice products. My family's two Chrysler minivans were quite reliable. From what I hear their biggest initial problem is in interior quality. I cannot speak for reliability since our last Chrysler was built in 1998. I think the big three has made great strides in recent years (I never thought they were bad in the first place) and I think the domestics are worthy competition. Look at what GM has done with the Malibu and the Lambda crossovers? Ford now has quality equal to the Japanese. I think people need to get over the "imports are better" ideal. I wouldn't trade my Cobalt for a Civic or Corolla.
In all honesty, I doubt that and vehicle mfg. had an idea things would be this bad. Cerberus is a company interested in making a profit. I can't imagine and company with half a brain taking on DCX and buying Chrysler brands with the idea they would dump money in the crapper in a little more than a year.
It is noteworthy that most of us don't understand than many foreign Auto Mfg.'s are subsidized by their governments. Korea, and Japan are just a couple you might want to look closer at how they produce a vehicle and ship it here and make a profit.
The US has bailed out many aircraft companies so we can keep our defense industry up and running. We have rescued Savings and Loans that were not insured. We have helped many students get education with Student Loans, How about the railroad industry, they are given billions just to keep transportation open for travelers. Senator Joe Biden has has ridden the rail road for some thirty plus years, with help form tax payers.
The fuel made from corn is highly supported by us taxpayers. Heck now they say corn is no less polluting than just plane old petrol gasoline. That a real kick in the pants. If we paid the real price for corn based e-85 fuel it would be much more than high grade gasoline.
Should any of the US auto makers go under we would see a massive down tern in our economy that would last a decade.
This situation deserves to be carefully looked at and planned so the money is what is really needed to keep this industry can keep on, and the money needs to be fully accounted for. If we can rebuild Europe, Japan, in WW 2 than we can help these Americian companies!
No-one contests that we CAN do it, I don't think. The important questions are SHOULD we do it, and HOW MANY generations of Americans will have to pay interest on the debt if we do?
But anyway, the topic in this thread was the merger, which now sounds like it is dead, along with tentative talks with Hyundai and Nissan-Renault. So the only remaining question on topic is: how many more weeks does Chrysler have in this world?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The new products coming out now are FAR better than what they were a decade ago. A lot of that credit should go to Lutz. It's too bad that "Dr. Z" was allowed to unravel alot of what he did for Chrysler.
But to be fair, the guys that ARE have done the best anyone could expect with the [non-permissible content removed] sandwich they inherited.....
Totally disagree. Wagoner made much of the sandwich, as he was president of GM North American Operations starting in 1994 and became GM CEO in 2000.. He presided over the SUV boom. The G6 was going to be a savior and was mediocre. The Cobalt was going to replace the tarnished Cavalier and was mediocre. Hummer was expanded. He didn't focus on high quality small cars; he kept expanding SUVs. There was no high-fuel-cost contingency plan.
Lutz thought that hybrids were a joke until the Prius became wildly successful. GM could have led this technology with all of their profits in the late '90s and early 2000's. They decided to work on a retro HHR years after the PT Cruiser was successful. They decided to resurrect the Camaro years after the Mustang was successful. Meanwhile they pumped their dollars into inane advertising campaigns: "An American Revolution"; "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet", "Born from Jets", "A Different Kind of Car Company". By the time they got religion the church bus was already arriving at the bingo parlor, and they weren't on it.
Even with a bloated structure and way too many divisions, they dabbled in more car companies. They lost billions on Fiat. They decided to acquire Saab. When it was apparent that the emperor had no clothes (i.e., competitive product for a changing market) they started heavy marketing of nearly useless E85 capabilities and of a plug-in hybrid that was 4-5 years from production. All vaporware to cover up the lack of competitive products. They offered the whole country discount pricing which killed their own residuals. Rick did a fairly decent job on the cost/operations side, cutting costs, and he made some efforts to put out new good products, particularly the CTS and the Malibu. But the large, strategic decisions - no leadership or vision at all. Put Steve Jobs in charge and you would see some bold decision making.
Rick did a fairly decent job on the cost/operations side, cutting costs, and he made some efforts to put out new good products, particularly the CTS and the Malibu. But the large, strategic decisions - no leadership or vision at all. Put Steve Jobs in charge and you would see some bold decision making.
Steve Jobs might be the elixir, but "engineering" car guys would be better.
Just started reading a book written in 2003, "The End of Detroit", by Micheline Maynard. She points out (as of 2003) that top executives at Detroit Big 3 have been from finance and accounting parts of their corporations. She contrasts this with Toyota and Honda having guys from "engineering" parts of their companies being the top executives. Intuitively, it would seem that engineers would always have mindset of innovating and improving product whereas finance might not. Honda/Toyota product offerings are rarely off the mark contrasted to the Big 3.
Just as new Obama administration being transititioned, wonder if a transfusion of some of Honda and Toyota top executives and some engineering managers into GM could save it. Obama, and any incoming President, will keep staff and workers that are "career" types and are party neutral. But, Obama and his leadership team will define new strategies and goals for the career workers to execute. Similarly, could Honda and Toyota donated top executives and other management change GM strategy and culture to turn it around but retaining core work force engineers and assembly. Would think that Honda/Toyota want to grow/prosper in the U.S., but also would not want to see the demise of GM.
A bailout of GM by U.S. should require a restructuring starting with the replacement of top management.
Of course, flys in the ointment, even with Honda/Toyota transfusion are unions and agreements to supply vehicles to dealers. Too many GM dealers around the U.S. and ridiculous rules that GM agreed to in allowing unions to dicatate "HOW' to run the business/day-to-day operations. That would have to be scuttled somehow. Might have been a possibility with a Republican Congress. But, with Democrats in control, there is no way they will allow any dimunition of union power or rescinding of their agreements.
Now, it is interesting that some Dems in last few months wanted mortgage companies to rewrite terms of mortgages to be more favorable to homeowners. But, would the Dems do anything to neutralize the stiffling effect of union agreements with automakers.
"Just started reading a book written in 2003, "The End of Detroit", by Micheline Maynard. She points out (as of 2003) that top executives at Detroit Big 3 have been from finance and accounting parts of their corporations. She contrasts this with Toyota and Honda having guys from "engineering" parts of their companies being the top executives. Intuitively, it would seem that engineers would always have mindset of innovating and improving product whereas finance might not. Honda/Toyota product offerings are rarely off the mark contrasted to the Big 3."
VERY interesting. Makes you wonder what the bigger evil is in this country, lawyers or accountants.
Chrysler can stay afloat for longer than GM and Ford simply because Cerebus has the ability to access money that Ford and GM don't. Being a private equity firm helps. Cerebus bought Chrysler as an investment. In their minds, they got it for a song and thought they could fix a few things then find someone to buy it for more than they did. Sort of like house flipping. But they forgot to do an "inspection" and didn't realize how many problems were involved.
To me, Cerebus should not receive any loan from the government since we don't know how long they are committed to Chrysler. If they want out of the auto industry, sell it!
To me, Cerebus should not receive any loan from the government since we don't know how long they are committed to Chrysler.
They should also be disqualified for a loan or any government help as former VP Dan Quayle runs Cerebus. Some of Dan's former friends would be the ones voting for the "loans" - that's quite a conflict of interest. Anything that makes Chrysler more valuable, makes Cerebus more money when they eventually sell it.
Cerberus, as everyone else, had no idea the crap would hit the fan. First gas prices, then credit, then no one is buying anything. If the gas prices had not skyrocketed we would be humming along at a slow pace but still humming, and Chrysler would have some value that others would want.
Daimler knew how bad Chrysler was. Why do you think they unloaded it for so little? I'm not even in the business and knew something wasn't right about this deal. Cerebus was greedy and thought this was a good way to make a quick return on $8B. They have no commitment to the future of Chrysler. They just want out of the auto industry. Why reward them with a loan knowing they will just sell at the first opportunity? They are not it it to make cars, they are interested in ROI, period. I feel bad for the workers because they have no control over this.
I tip my hat to you as I feel and have stated the same. Accurate and to the point.
While I might have a slight difference of choice on the selection of Steve Jobs (though I can understand the choice), everything else hits each and every nail on its head. Just because things were "inherited" doesn't mean the status quo was to be kept.
EXACTLY mirrors the Titanic, IMO. The ship was too big to turn, the iceberg was just waiting out there. They managed to get the turn started once they had two co-captains that worked well together and could incorporate a single vision into day-to-day operations (Lutz on the product side and Wagoner on the finance/marketing side), but by then the iceberg was too close......I won't finish the story, we all know what happened next......
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This is all too true. I don't get the free pass that so many give Wagoner. as noted he was heading the North American operations for the day of the big SUV and he's been CEO for 8 years now! As recently as 2004 they still turned a profit.
Barring government intervention that likely has to come before Obama is even sworn in GM either needs to reorganize under chapter 11 or they are going to get their pieces picked up after chapter 7.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The bean counters over ran good business sense... Harley Earl if alive would give Mr. Wagoner a good swift kick to the seat of the pants, for his stupidity. Lutz hasn't a clue either and would be better off being shown the door... I know grade school kids that could run GM better than these two clowns.
GM failed to focus on innovation and foresight... Let it not be forgotten that it was Detriot automakers that attacked anyone who dare be innovative. Preston Tucker learned this when he dared try to introduce a car that had seatbelts and safety glass. Delorean and Wangers had to get crafty to slip things by GM CEO's that made people want to buy cars. Once they caught on it was too late to curb the sales of Pontiac. GM CEO's finially brought Pontiac back under control in the early 80's. However, Pontiac engineers always found new was to slip one by old Chevy controlled GM. Buick has also suffered from GM's lack of attention to allow it to be innovative.
If GM wants to succeed it needs to drop it's bad habits that began in the late 70's.
Chevy: should focus on the low cost vehicles. But retain it's Corvette, Camaro, Cobalt SS, Trucks, SUV's, mini vans and full size vans. But they should get this Volt to sales as quickly as possible like by spring! The soon to be realsed Pontiac G8 ST would have been better released as the new El Camino SS... Again GM not thinking wisely as always
GMC: should only offer work inspired vehicles no frills. Forget about the sound deading material, carpet interiors, etc... It's a work vehicle it's supposed to get muddy inside and out and yet easy to clean with a garden hose. I miss the days when I could hose out the interior floorboard of the old 74 GMC truck...
Buick: should be focusing on the scale just below that of Cadillac. The Riveria, LaCrosse, Enclave, and Regal
Pontiac: No Mini vans, SUV's or crossovers. It should focus on what made the brand great by focusing on sporty yet refined. The Solstice, G8, GTO, Firebird, G6 sport (tuner inspired car), and the Vibe.
Saturn: should be sold
Hummer: should be sold
Saab: should be sold
Opel & Holden: Should be retained.
That would be a good start but I believe GM needs to work on getting most of the average low cost vehicles into Hybrid, alaternative or electric powered types. If 50% of their vehicles sold was in those areas it would leave plenty of room for such vehicles like a Corvette and/or Trucks which by use don't lend themselves to using alternative sources of power like an average car.
Your ideas were good two years ago, but it's a bit too late...
Like the Titanic analogy mentioned previously, the ship has already struck the iceberg (the economic downturn). The testimony to Congress by the CEO was analogous to the spot in the movie where the designer of the ship realizes that if multiple compartments flood, water can flow over the baffles one by one and sink the whole ship. Sort of an "oh crap!" moment. How many sales will be lost (in an already bad situation) because of the current publicity about GM? If I were planning to buy a GM vehicle right now I would have major hesitation. The water is flowing in faster into the ship all the time, and the bow may be starting to lift.
Like the Titanic analogy mentioned previously, the ship has already struck the iceberg (the economic downturn). The testimony to Congress by the CEO was analogous to the spot in the movie where the designer of the ship realizes that if multiple compartments flood, water can flow over the baffles one by one and sink the whole ship. Sort of an "oh crap!" moment. How many sales will be lost (in an already bad situation) because of the current publicity about GM? If I were planning to buy a GM vehicle right now I would have major hesitation. The water is flowing in faster into the ship all the time, and the bow may be starting to lift.
I was wondering the same thing. Wagoner is worried about people not buying from a bankrupt company. Personally, I wouldn't buy a new car from a company in the financial condition that GM is in.
LOL, actually they were good ideas 30 years ago but did they learn from the 70's? I think not... Today GM is facing redemption point from which there's no recovery if they sail past that thresehold.
If GM had been smart they would have had the Solstice on the market before the Miata. Had they been smart they would have had the HRR on the market before the PT cruiser. If they had been smart They would have had their retro Camaro out in 2003 stealing all the thunder of the retro Mustang... Had they been smart They would have had the Volt on the market back in the early 1990's... This isn't hindsight talking it's stuff I've known for years, that many of us have known for years. But that's the difference between bean counters and people who know cars. The American spirit is alive and well in the automotive industry it's just that the Japanesse and Europeans have it. They haven't allowed the bean counters to control the product. Any bean counter can build a low cost car but that doesn't mean it will sell. So, the savings isn't really a savings if the car doesn't sell, but the bean counters fail to understand that most important part. A person like Harley Earl is what GM needs not more bean counters. (That's right Mr. Wagoner if your reading this and really want GM to become No. 1 then you need to contact me, I work cheap and I get the job done...)
GM can survive but they are going to have to change, the real question is will they? If they chose to do so then they must drop some of these vehicles they produce that have no real selling value. I believe they could do this without having to eliminate brands like Buick. A brand very much suffering an idenity crisis as the average Buick owner is a 60's something year old. Buick could be the low priced Cadillac using the same platforms. Let Cadillac be GM's answer to Mercedes and focus on the highest upscale quality. Those who can afford such luxury will be happy to pay for the high quality that Cadillac's will cost to achieve that level.
Chevy = entry level affordable cars with some higher quality models (Corvette, etc,) Pontiac = 2nd level more sporty spirited vehicles (No mini-vans or SUV's) Buick = 3rd level higher priced luxuary sedans and mini vans Cadillac = 4th level highest priced luxury sedans and SUV's (No mini-van's)
GMC = Work trucks and work vans very few frills.
Cobalt & G6 (Tuner cars) is a great way to get the very young attracted to the GM brand.
Corvette = remain the course, it's never been a money maker for GM but ever Mfg needs a flagship.
The Camaro and Firebird are unique as they are truely Americana automotive inspirations. While the Firebird is dead I don't believe it should have been abandoned. I agree it was dated and highly over priced it wasn't the car itself that was the problem. It had too many unnecessary frills along with it's Camaro cousin. These were meant to be pony cars and GM got away from building them that way. They need to be mid priced muscle, leave the GTO to be the high priced muscle and touring car.
GTO, was a great idea but a poorly excuted program. GM failed to recognize or stupidly refused to believe the American public when they described what they expected a GTO should be. Had GM relaeased the 2004 GTO looking more like the 2005 GTO I think the story would have turned out differently. As I see it the GTO still has a life at Pontiac and a possible shared platform could help Buick in the process. If Buick had a Grand National/GSX in it's line up that would introduce the 30 somethings to a brand they might want to own later in life.
I don't really believe you can compare two different Mfg's, for example: a dedicated Ford owner isn't going to buy a Chevy. The same can be said about Mercedes and BMW owners they are sold on the image that owning a European car makes you superior to your freinds and neighbors. I've owned and driven several European vehicles and I'm not all that impressed. Porsche has the worst breakdown record of them all and the Pontiac G8 is every bit better than a BMW 3 series. But we aren't talking about narrow minded buyers that's not where the money is. The money comes from building a reliable quality car that does well for what it is and is attractive. A person doesn't go buy a corvette if fuel mileage is foremost on thier agenda. Nor does a person who's looking for the most fuel efficent vehicle concern themselves with horsepower and the lack of leather seating. There's trade offs in any given situation... Those wanting green vehicles are especially difficult to deal with as the whole idea is being created on the fly. We know we want a vehicle that can go at least 300 miles on average before needing to be re-supplied (What ever that may mean). We also expect the resupply process to take no longer than 10-15 minutes. Most importantly the vehicle needs to be eye appealing. I think the Volt is the best direction but it's still a learning curve and it doesn't meet our ideal green vehicle it's at least a step in the right direction... I would triple the fast track to get the Volt to market, It's time for others to play catchup instead of GM always being 10 years behind what's popular...
If I were running GM, I'd do the following (for starters)
1. Call in the engineering (not the styling) teams that did the Corvette C5/C6, the Cobalt SS and the Cadillac and tell them "you are now in charge of future model development".
2. Anyone who uses the word "retro" will be fired. "Retro" is another way of saying "I've run out of ideas".
3. I'd buy out all dealerships who cannot sell cars or who have plentiful complaints. If their locations are good, I'd open factory stores there instead.
4. I'd sell off Saab if anyone would buy it. If not, I'd raffle it off.
5. I'd retire 90% of the styling departments of all brands and hire Italians.
6. I'd back-burner the Volt for now. It can't save us anyway (niche markets? Not today!)
2. Anyone who uses the word "retro" will be fired. "Retro" is another way of saying "I've run out of ideas".
Although a Morgan is pretty attractive. But I think retro can be good, especially if it is retro like Ralph Lauren's Ferraris or Bugatti is.
5. I'd retire 90% of the styling departments of all brands and hire Italians.
Or at least use Italian leather! Buying a GM product typically has the panache of buying your shoes at Sears.
6. I'd back-burner the Volt for now. It can't save us anyway (niche markets? Not today!)
Right. When you're in a fight for survival in the next few months, everything may have to be halted except the essential. I'd stop all R&D, all model redesign, and all plant modernization until I knew I'd still be in business in a few months. Anything that lessens the chances of surviving the next few months should go. Analogy: If your house is on fire, anything you try and rescue and carry, lessens your chances of survival.
GM needs to break-even or make a small profit asap; to show the markets, government, and potential buyers that it is going to make it.
Before I got into the real restructuring, I would do the following to survive right now (as CEO of GM)
1. ask the government to allow GM to close unprofitable franchises at little-no cost and relatively quickly. This will eliminate the "too many dealers" issue rather quickly.
2. Close Hummer. All Hummer dealers sell some other GM franchise anyways. And lets face it, nobody on Planet Earth is going to want to buy Hummer as a brand... Hummer must still cost GM some sort of cash every month to maintain.
3. Cut all senior level management salaries to $1/year, with bonuses exclusively in GM stock. Give them 0 severance if they choose to leave. This is more symbolic than anything else, but at least it'll serve as a nice wake-up call for upper management.
4. delay all product development for another 12 months, minimum, including the Volt program.
Maybe they hope Congress will pass a law letting GM get rid of the Pontiac dealers without having to pay them off (a bankruptcy plan without having to file Ch. 11). Congress gave the Alaska Pipeline a pass from NEPA laws and rules, so I suppose it's possible.
Considering there are barely 100 Saab dealers and not that many Saturn and throw in that almost all the Pontiac dealers are also GMC and Buick dealers I don't see where this helps them that much in shedding dealerships.
I guess every bit helps.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Ironically, this is where a merger w/ Chrysler would help. Imagine all Saturn and Jeep dealers merging. Then, instead of 400 dealers, you would have over a thousand, and a more complete auto lineup.
I don't see where shedding dealers will save them anything. I do understand they have responsibilities to supply cars. The number of dealers should be a plus in getting their products to market. Another few months there won't be any GM dealers left in business anyway. They are dropping like flies.
Well, dealer count aside those are the first three brands I would dump on the way to reducing overhead....and it's still questionable whether they should keep Buick and GMC. But the thing is, if they eliminate the brands but can't do anything to eliminate the excess production capacity, what good does it do?
Hopefully Gettelfinger will be as good as his word and the Jobs Bank can be dropped immediately. In that case they could close plants right away, and dropping the brands would be meaningful in reducing a HUGE amount of ongoing costs associated with maintaining those brands.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
Yep. High volume and "profitable". GM is in same straits as you or I when in bad financial straits. I, we, jettison, superfluous such as cable, magazines, expensive cell plans, weekend restaurant meals, etc. For GM, anything not high volume and not profitable must go. This might include Solstice, Camaro. The only thing to hang onto would be Corvette for image.
You don't kill those brands, you just give their dealers rebadged Chevys, thus avoiding any complaints about GM not supplying them with product.
To summarize:
I want distinct Cadillac styling and character
I want a level of luxury equal or surpassing that of the S-Class
I want performance and handling equal or surpassing that of the 7-Series
I want reliability equal or surpassing that of the Lexus LS460
Regards,
OW
By MarketWatch
Last update: 10:31 a.m. EST Nov. 8, 2008Comments: 7
SEOUL (MarketWatch)
Hyundai denied on Saturday a wire service report that it has been in talks with Cerberus Capital Management LP about buying Jeep or other assets from Chrysler LLC.
A Hyundai Motor spokeswoman said the carmaker isn't considering acquiring Chrysler's Jeep brand and other assets because it is focusing on completing its overseas plant construction. 'We have little room for acquisition of an overseas company such as Chrysler,' said the spokeswoman.
Citing people with knowledge of the discussions, Reuters reported Friday that Cerberus is looking to renew talks with other potential bidders like Renault SA (and Nissan Motor Co."
I want distinct Cadillac styling and character
I want a level of luxury equal or surpassing that of the S-Class
I want performance and handling equal or surpassing that of the 7-Series
I want reliability equal or surpassing that of the Lexus LS460
Are you willing to pay $15k to $30k more to get your wishes? The bottom of the line S550 is about $35,000 more than the Caddy DTS.
the Challenge: Can the US make better cars for less?
The Genesis might not be better than the Merc S550 but I'll bet a new entity that arises out of the ashes of the current industry will be able to provide excellence once again. Right now, the DTS Perf. costs $60K...now all you need to do is beat the S-Class with a new design and premium parts.
Regards,
OW
Hyundai already makes, on average, more reliable cars than Chrysler, not to mention Hyundai doesn't have the mess that's called the Chrysler Sebring.
Nobody has anything to benefit out of Chrysler. Why doesn't Cerberus just sell Jeep and a few assembly plants, if there are buyers, and then declare Chrysler bankrupt and close it all down quickly?
I believe you may well see GM go belly up before you will Chrysler. Remember the employees are still interested in a employee buy out...if the price were right. As far as vehicles and how they are made Hyundai has made great strides in improving their vehicles. However even this year there are many short falls in quality that will eventually come up in quality, but a Hyundai still has a huge dump in value over a 3 year period. A Korean car is still just a Korean car. For me I will stand by Chrysler, Ford and GM because I believe in supporting American workers as much as possible. (note..I include Mexico and Canada as Americian) Few would argue that the Windsor plant is not one of the best plants for quality fit and finish. However GM's plant in Kansas has a poor fit and finish. (my opinion)
Have you driven a Sebring of 2008 or 2009? For the money this is a great car, (all except the 4 cyl engine) I think Cerberus has made some good improvements in quality, but they like everyone else wants a greater return on their investment. The Automobile industry is not a good investment right now no matter what company you have your money invester in.
Should you go to a dealers only auto auction you would not believe how little a vehicle brings today. Cars with 8,000 miles and 1 year old bring less than $ 7,000. Trucks and SUV's are so low you can't believe it. The Korean cars bring even lower return at an auction.
Cut Chrysler and Cerberus some slack, after all GM is the one who cant survive beyond January with out a bail out. (by the way I do support the bail out for the US auto industry) after all we did bail out the crooks and thieves how started this mess by selling worthless paper on subprime loans, and if we v=can help crooks we certianly can help the back bone of our economy, the auto industry!
farout
I can't cut Cerebus a break on this one. They knew what they were getting into when they bought Chrysler last year. THey wanted to invest a little money and get everythign in line a for a buyer. They were never in it to build great cars. They wanted to make money on their initial investment. The risk didn't work and they want out. Why should the government bail Cerebus out? Find a buyer (Nissan), even if it is at a loss, and sell Chrysler.
Did I support the bailout of the financial industry? No. But remember this potentially affects every single American in one way or another. Whereas with the Big 3, we are talking about 3 companies. Once their values diminishes more or they declare bankruptcy, there will be compnaies that buy Chrysler, Ford or GM.
We still can buy steel in this country.
"Now there's a nightmare scenario - Cerberus running both GM AND Chrysler! They have done such a good job so far, of course. "
Misconstrued I'm afraid. The merger has been obstructed because A) Gm wants C's 11 billion of cash and want's to idle C while retaining their brands. Cost to the state of Michigan , 45-50,000 jobs with ancillary impact but hey, better one than three.
Help ! I need somebody Help! Not just anybody.
Working , will advise.
"Did I support the bailout of the financial industry? No. But remember this potentially affects every single American in one way or another. Whereas with the Big 3, we are talking about 3 companies. Once their values diminishes more or they declare bankruptcy, there will be compnaies that buy Chrysler, Ford or GM.
We still can buy steel in this country. "
Sir, I respect your posts, but let express my angst how the so called rebel republicans to my shame opted for a Newt Gingrich moment while simultaneously rejecting their President, their Treasury Secretary, their Chief of the Federal Reserve,and their own Party . Now granted Paulson is actually a liberal from Goldman and possibly Wall St could have resolved it on their own, but when the stakes got raised by making it a bill and the Fed Chief says this is urgent. What part of urgent didn't they get? Main street, Wall Street three bags full. Does not Main Street have a 401-k ? An Ira ? A 529 ?
In that one sad week of Sept. 29th we saw, financial hysteria take root, McCain who previously has a slight lead over Obama fall to a 10 point deficit and the makeup of Congress changed. Oh, I almost forgot, a cyclical bear confined to one year to a secular bear much longer. It's the economy stupid and voters voted with their 401-k's. So by my count we have 132 morons in the house.Some democrats were equally stupid, but not the majority of the no votes. Since it is moot, I'll share with you what Bernake swore congress to secrecy. The majority of US debt is held by foreign central banks. It is rather unwise to cast aspersions to the credit quality of US financial system. They knew this yet chose still to grandstand. May the Lord have mercy on their souls . Jackasses one and all. C was looking to merge with Renault, Nissan would be a definitive upgrade.
Hell , even Yugo. Was the bill poorly styled ? No doubt. But America needed affirmation at that moment and it was sadly lacking.
I think Cadillac should follow the same formula Lexus did. Offer S-Class quality with better reliability for less.
What kills the Genesis IMO is that it's called a HYUNDAI Genesis rather than just a "Genesis." The anonymous styling and that grotesque grille don't help. I don't think a "Toyota LS400" would have done as well. It might be well-regarded as was the Cressida, but nobody would take it as a serious luxury car.
It is noteworthy that most of us don't understand than many foreign Auto Mfg.'s are subsidized by their governments. Korea, and Japan are just a couple you might want to look closer at how they produce a vehicle and ship it here and make a profit.
The US has bailed out many aircraft companies so we can keep our defense industry up and running. We have rescued Savings and Loans that were not insured. We have helped many students get education with Student Loans, How about the railroad industry, they are given billions just to keep transportation open for travelers. Senator Joe Biden has has ridden the rail road for some thirty plus years, with help form tax payers.
The fuel made from corn is highly supported by us taxpayers. Heck now they say corn is no less polluting than just plane old petrol gasoline. That a real kick in the pants. If we paid the real price for corn based e-85 fuel it would be much more than high grade gasoline.
Should any of the US auto makers go under we would see a massive down tern in our economy that would last a decade.
This situation deserves to be carefully looked at and planned so the money is what is really needed to keep this industry can keep on, and the money needs to be fully accounted for. If we can rebuild Europe, Japan, in WW 2 than we can help these Americian companies!
farout
But anyway, the topic in this thread was the merger, which now sounds like it is dead, along with tentative talks with Hyundai and Nissan-Renault. So the only remaining question on topic is: how many more weeks does Chrysler have in this world?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The new products coming out now are FAR better than what they were a decade ago. A lot of that credit should go to Lutz. It's too bad that "Dr. Z" was allowed to unravel alot of what he did for Chrysler.
I agree; they're stuck in a situation with no possible good outcomes, only least undesirable ones.
Totally disagree. Wagoner made much of the sandwich, as he was president of GM North American Operations starting in 1994 and became GM CEO in 2000.. He presided over the SUV boom. The G6 was going to be a savior and was mediocre. The Cobalt was going to replace the tarnished Cavalier and was mediocre. Hummer was expanded. He didn't focus on high quality small cars; he kept expanding SUVs. There was no high-fuel-cost contingency plan.
Lutz thought that hybrids were a joke until the Prius became wildly successful. GM could have led this technology with all of their profits in the late '90s and early 2000's. They decided to work on a retro HHR years after the PT Cruiser was successful. They decided to resurrect the Camaro years after the Mustang was successful. Meanwhile they pumped their dollars into inane advertising campaigns: "An American Revolution"; "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet", "Born from Jets", "A Different Kind of Car Company". By the time they got religion the church bus was already arriving at the bingo parlor, and they weren't on it.
Even with a bloated structure and way too many divisions, they dabbled in more car companies. They lost billions on Fiat. They decided to acquire Saab. When it was apparent that the emperor had no clothes (i.e., competitive product for a changing market) they started heavy marketing of nearly useless E85 capabilities and of a plug-in hybrid that was 4-5 years from production. All vaporware to cover up the lack of competitive products. They offered the whole country discount pricing which killed their own residuals. Rick did a fairly decent job on the cost/operations side, cutting costs, and he made some efforts to put out new good products, particularly the CTS and the Malibu. But the large, strategic decisions - no leadership or vision at all. Put Steve Jobs in charge and you would see some bold decision making.
Steve Jobs might be the elixir, but "engineering" car guys would be better.
Just started reading a book written in 2003, "The End of Detroit", by Micheline Maynard. She points out (as of 2003) that top executives at Detroit Big 3 have been from finance and accounting parts of their corporations. She contrasts this with Toyota and Honda having guys from "engineering" parts of their companies being the top executives. Intuitively, it would seem that engineers would always have mindset of innovating and improving product whereas finance might not. Honda/Toyota product offerings are rarely off the mark contrasted to the Big 3.
Just as new Obama administration being transititioned, wonder if a transfusion of some of Honda and Toyota top executives and some engineering managers into GM could save it. Obama, and any incoming President, will keep staff and workers that are "career" types and are party neutral. But, Obama and his leadership team will define new strategies and goals for the career workers to execute. Similarly, could Honda and Toyota donated top executives and other management change GM strategy and culture to turn it around but retaining core work force engineers and assembly. Would think that Honda/Toyota want to grow/prosper in the U.S., but also would not want to see the demise of GM.
A bailout of GM by U.S. should require a restructuring starting with the replacement of top management.
Of course, flys in the ointment, even with Honda/Toyota transfusion are unions and agreements to supply vehicles to dealers. Too many GM dealers around the U.S. and ridiculous rules that GM agreed to in allowing unions to dicatate "HOW' to run the business/day-to-day operations. That would have to be scuttled somehow. Might have been a possibility with a Republican Congress. But, with Democrats in control, there is no way they will allow any dimunition of union power or rescinding of their agreements.
Now, it is interesting that some Dems in last few months wanted mortgage companies to rewrite terms of mortgages to be more favorable to homeowners. But, would the Dems do anything to neutralize the stiffling effect of union agreements with automakers.
VERY interesting. Makes you wonder what the bigger evil is in this country, lawyers or accountants.
To me, Cerebus should not receive any loan from the government since we don't know how long they are committed to Chrysler. If they want out of the auto industry, sell it!
They should also be disqualified for a loan or any government help as former VP Dan Quayle runs Cerebus. Some of Dan's former friends would be the ones voting for the "loans" - that's quite a conflict of interest. Anything that makes Chrysler more valuable, makes Cerebus more money when they eventually sell it.
While I might have a slight difference of choice on the selection of Steve Jobs (though I can understand the choice), everything else hits each and every nail on its head. Just because things were "inherited" doesn't mean the status quo was to be kept.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Barring government intervention that likely has to come before Obama is even sworn in GM either needs to reorganize under chapter 11 or they are going to get their pieces picked up after chapter 7.
Make youself such a big failure with so many jobs at stake with the hope that the Federal Government comes running with buckets of money.
I'll bet millions would be spent handing out golden parachutes to the rank and file CEO's who ran the ship into the ground.
What other reasons are there for these two colassal giants and failure to get together?
GM failed to focus on innovation and foresight... Let it not be forgotten that it was Detriot automakers that attacked anyone who dare be innovative. Preston Tucker learned this when he dared try to introduce a car that had seatbelts and safety glass. Delorean and Wangers had to get crafty to slip things by GM CEO's that made people want to buy cars. Once they caught on it was too late to curb the sales of Pontiac. GM CEO's finially brought Pontiac back under control in the early 80's. However, Pontiac engineers always found new was to slip one by old Chevy controlled GM. Buick has also suffered from GM's lack of attention to allow it to be innovative.
If GM wants to succeed it needs to drop it's bad habits that began in the late 70's.
Chevy: should focus on the low cost vehicles. But retain it's Corvette, Camaro, Cobalt SS, Trucks, SUV's, mini vans and full size vans. But they should get this Volt to sales as quickly as possible like by spring! The soon to be realsed Pontiac G8 ST would have been better released as the new El Camino SS... Again GM not thinking wisely as always
GMC: should only offer work inspired vehicles no frills. Forget about the sound deading material, carpet interiors, etc... It's a work vehicle it's supposed to get muddy inside and out and yet easy to clean with a garden hose. I miss the days when I could hose out the interior floorboard of the old 74 GMC truck...
Buick: should be focusing on the scale just below that of Cadillac. The Riveria, LaCrosse, Enclave, and Regal
Pontiac: No Mini vans, SUV's or crossovers. It should focus on what made the brand great by focusing on sporty yet refined. The Solstice, G8, GTO, Firebird, G6 sport (tuner inspired car), and the Vibe.
Saturn: should be sold
Hummer: should be sold
Saab: should be sold
Opel & Holden: Should be retained.
That would be a good start but I believe GM needs to work on getting most of the average low cost vehicles into Hybrid, alaternative or electric powered types. If 50% of their vehicles sold was in those areas it would leave plenty of room for such vehicles like a Corvette and/or Trucks which by use don't lend themselves to using alternative sources of power like an average car.
Like the Titanic analogy mentioned previously, the ship has already struck the iceberg (the economic downturn). The testimony to Congress by the CEO was analogous to the spot in the movie where the designer of the ship realizes that if multiple compartments flood, water can flow over the baffles one by one and sink the whole ship. Sort of an "oh crap!" moment. How many sales will be lost (in an already bad situation) because of the current publicity about GM? If I were planning to buy a GM vehicle right now I would have major hesitation. The water is flowing in faster into the ship all the time, and the bow may be starting to lift.
I was wondering the same thing. Wagoner is worried about people not buying from a bankrupt company. Personally, I wouldn't buy a new car from a company in the financial condition that GM is in.
If GM had been smart they would have had the Solstice on the market before the Miata. Had they been smart they would have had the HRR on the market before the PT cruiser. If they had been smart They would have had their retro Camaro out in 2003 stealing all the thunder of the retro Mustang... Had they been smart They would have had the Volt on the market back in the early 1990's... This isn't hindsight talking it's stuff I've known for years, that many of us have known for years. But that's the difference between bean counters and people who know cars. The American spirit is alive and well in the automotive industry it's just that the Japanesse and Europeans have it. They haven't allowed the bean counters to control the product. Any bean counter can build a low cost car but that doesn't mean it will sell. So, the savings isn't really a savings if the car doesn't sell, but the bean counters fail to understand that most important part. A person like Harley Earl is what GM needs not more bean counters. (That's right Mr. Wagoner if your reading this and really want GM to become No. 1 then you need to contact me, I work cheap and I get the job done...)
GM can survive but they are going to have to change, the real question is will they? If they chose to do so then they must drop some of these vehicles they produce that have no real selling value. I believe they could do this without having to eliminate brands like Buick. A brand very much suffering an idenity crisis as the average Buick owner is a 60's something year old. Buick could be the low priced Cadillac using the same platforms. Let Cadillac be GM's answer to Mercedes and focus on the highest upscale quality. Those who can afford such luxury will be happy to pay for the high quality that Cadillac's will cost to achieve that level.
Chevy = entry level affordable cars with some higher quality models (Corvette, etc,)
Pontiac = 2nd level more sporty spirited vehicles (No mini-vans or SUV's)
Buick = 3rd level higher priced luxuary sedans and mini vans
Cadillac = 4th level highest priced luxury sedans and SUV's (No mini-van's)
GMC = Work trucks and work vans very few frills.
Cobalt & G6 (Tuner cars) is a great way to get the very young attracted to the GM brand.
Corvette = remain the course, it's never been a money maker for GM but ever Mfg needs a flagship.
The Camaro and Firebird are unique as they are truely Americana automotive inspirations. While the Firebird is dead I don't believe it should have been abandoned. I agree it was dated and highly over priced it wasn't the car itself that was the problem. It had too many unnecessary frills along with it's Camaro cousin. These were meant to be pony cars and GM got away from building them that way. They need to be mid priced muscle, leave the GTO to be the high priced muscle and touring car.
GTO, was a great idea but a poorly excuted program. GM failed to recognize or stupidly refused to believe the American public when they described what they expected a GTO should be. Had GM relaeased the 2004 GTO looking more like the 2005 GTO I think the story would have turned out differently. As I see it the GTO still has a life at Pontiac and a possible shared platform could help Buick in the process. If Buick had a Grand National/GSX in it's line up that would introduce the 30 somethings to a brand they might want to own later in life.
I don't really believe you can compare two different Mfg's, for example: a dedicated Ford owner isn't going to buy a Chevy. The same can be said about Mercedes and BMW owners they are sold on the image that owning a European car makes you superior to your freinds and neighbors. I've owned and driven several European vehicles and I'm not all that impressed. Porsche has the worst breakdown record of them all and the Pontiac G8 is every bit better than a BMW 3 series. But we aren't talking about narrow minded buyers that's not where the money is. The money comes from building a reliable quality car that does well for what it is and is attractive. A person doesn't go buy a corvette if fuel mileage is foremost on thier agenda. Nor does a person who's looking for the most fuel efficent vehicle concern themselves with horsepower and the lack of leather seating. There's trade offs in any given situation... Those wanting green vehicles are especially difficult to deal with as the whole idea is being created on the fly. We know we want a vehicle that can go at least 300 miles on average before needing to be re-supplied (What ever that may mean). We also expect the resupply process to take no longer than 10-15 minutes. Most importantly the vehicle needs to be eye appealing. I think the Volt is the best direction but it's still a learning curve and it doesn't meet our ideal green vehicle it's at least a step in the right direction... I would triple the fast track to get the Volt to market, It's time for others to play catchup instead of GM always being 10 years behind what's popular...
If I were running GM, I'd do the following (for starters)
1. Call in the engineering (not the styling) teams that did the Corvette C5/C6, the Cobalt SS and the Cadillac and tell them "you are now in charge of future model development".
2. Anyone who uses the word "retro" will be fired. "Retro" is another way of saying "I've run out of ideas".
3. I'd buy out all dealerships who cannot sell cars or who have plentiful complaints. If their locations are good, I'd open factory stores there instead.
4. I'd sell off Saab if anyone would buy it. If not, I'd raffle it off.
5. I'd retire 90% of the styling departments of all brands and hire Italians.
6. I'd back-burner the Volt for now. It can't save us anyway (niche markets? Not today!)
Visiting Host
Although a Morgan is pretty attractive. But I think retro can be good, especially if it is retro like Ralph Lauren's Ferraris or Bugatti is.
5. I'd retire 90% of the styling departments of all brands and hire Italians.
Or at least use Italian leather! Buying a GM product typically has the panache of buying your shoes at Sears.
6. I'd back-burner the Volt for now. It can't save us anyway (niche markets? Not today!)
Right. When you're in a fight for survival in the next few months, everything may have to be halted except the essential. I'd stop all R&D, all model redesign, and all plant modernization until I knew I'd still be in business in a few months. Anything that lessens the chances of surviving the next few months should go. Analogy: If your house is on fire, anything you try and rescue and carry, lessens your chances of survival.
GM needs to break-even or make a small profit asap; to show the markets, government, and potential buyers that it is going to make it.
But I don't know...to me, "retro" is a winner's game--the spending of excess wealth. It's not something a loser does to stay in the game IMO.
As for Morgan, when you sell like 12 cars a year, sure, retro works.
1. ask the government to allow GM to close unprofitable franchises at little-no cost and relatively quickly. This will eliminate the "too many dealers" issue rather quickly.
2. Close Hummer. All Hummer dealers sell some other GM franchise anyways. And lets face it, nobody on Planet Earth is going to want to buy Hummer as a brand... Hummer must still cost GM some sort of cash every month to maintain.
3. Cut all senior level management salaries to $1/year, with bonuses exclusively in GM stock. Give them 0 severance if they choose to leave. This is more symbolic than anything else, but at least it'll serve as a nice wake-up call for upper management.
4. delay all product development for another 12 months, minimum, including the Volt program.
They do need to keep up on product development. They are only now catching up with the market.
Maybe they hope Congress will pass a law letting GM get rid of the Pontiac dealers without having to pay them off (a bankruptcy plan without having to file Ch. 11). Congress gave the Alaska Pipeline a pass from NEPA laws and rules, so I suppose it's possible.
I guess every bit helps.
Hopefully Gettelfinger will be as good as his word and the Jobs Bank can be dropped immediately. In that case they could close plants right away, and dropping the brands would be meaningful in reducing a HUGE amount of ongoing costs associated with maintaining those brands.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)