Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
If you think the Astro is a good example of a quality vehicle with a good interior then I can see why we are not connecting.
Your definition of luxury seems to be the opposite of sport. However, for me, luxury and sport can go hand in hand; which is why I do like Acura's and Audi.
From comparing the parts at the online Honda/Acura parts dealers, many of the components have identical part numbers like switches and the like. I think the leather affects perception as opposed to reality.
I compared a top of the line leather equipped EX v6 accord to the TSX in the same day with back to back visits to a Honda & Acura dealership. There is no denying the TSX has better build quality, fit, finish and look, and the big parts, like the panels, dash, steering wheel are not the same parts. The Trunk release may be the same part as other tiny details like buttons and switches, but the BIG PICTURE parts are not. Therefore, even with leather not being a factor since the Honda was also equipped with it, I noticed the Acura's leather was superior and a grade above to the Honda's leather as well. Funny you should mention leather.
Have you reported your Honda's squeeks and rattles to the dealership? Mine was able to correct the one or 2 rattles I had. Sounds like you got a dud from Ohio.
Automotive News Europe
May 4, 2009 15:01 CET
UPDATED: May 4 16:53 CET
BERLIN (Reuters) -- Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne has outlined an "interesting" plan to create Europe's biggest carmaker but will need 5-7 billion euros in financial support from governments, Germany's economy minister said.
Marchionne met with senior government officials in Berlin on Monday to present his ambitious vision of combining Fiat's car business with General Motors' European operations and Chrysler.
Marchionne's plan would involve spinning off Fiat's core car business into a new company including Chrysler and GM's Opel, Vauxhall and Saab brands.
"It is an interesting approach, without question," Economy Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg told reporters after meeting Marchionne.
He said the German government, which is keen to save jobs at GM's Opel unit ahead of a September election, would look at the details of the plan and also consider other options.
All Opel's final assembly plants in Germany would be safe under Marchionne's plan, said Guttenberg, but an engines and parts factory in Kaiserslautern, in western Germany, may be hit.
Opel employs about 25,000 people in Germany and also has plants in Spain, Belgium and Britain.
Guttenberg said Fiat was not planning on taking on new debt but that it would require some 5-7 billion euros in bridge-financing and was seeking state guarantees from around Europe. Previously, Opel had said it required 3.3 billion euros ($4.37 billion) in state guarantees.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090504/ANE02/305049898/-1
What a load of bunk. Fiat will get involved just enough to really screw up Chrysler and GM's foreign operations, and then the whole thing will come crashing down.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Anyone who blames foreign car buyer's for the Big 3's woes is out of line and misplacing the blame. The blame belongs to the Big 3 for their own problems.
If the public does not like one's products, then the products must be improved.
If the public does not TRUST one's products, then the company must back those products for longer with warranties that do not contain 1,000's of exclusions and tons of fine print. Also, rental/loaner cars must be provided. Or, the company can pay back the customer for all previous repair costs on a previous lemon/Big3 vehicle with a rebate to cover the likely "future" repair costs a customer will expect based on previous experience. If the future repairs are never required, then they gain a future customer, and the NEXT "repair" rebate can be based on the previous car's repair expenses. If it's true GM and Ford (Chrysler's hopeless) improved their quality, then this rebate should not cost them much anymore after the first sell. That first sale will cost them about $5,000 for my "repair rebate" in my case based on my first, only, and last Big 3 vehicle experience *unless they implement the above*
Also, repairs are an inconvenience and a waste of time, and time is money. They need to implement a customer payback rebate for every warranty repair required.
1st repair is $50 back to customer.
2nd repair and warranty visit results in $100 rebate to customer.
3rd $200.
4th $400 , and so on and so forth with no limit.
Finally, they need to lower their prices so that the vehicles do not depreciate radioactively. The prices are out of line and way too high for what you get.
The prices are so high, they make LUXURY makers like Audi appear bargain VALUE based deals!
I second that. I can't think of anything that would be step down from a Astro, maybe an S-10, but that is only my opinion. I've been around tons of GM cars from the mid 80's to the mid '00's and the interior of any GM truck and most cars are god awful. Been a long time since I've been around a 90's vintage Civic, but from I recall (my brother had a '97 Civic EX back then) they always had a nice functional interior vs. the competition ie. Neon, Cavalier, Escort, etc. Just look at a '98 Cavalier, just embarrassingly cheap to touch and look at. My '00 Suburban was compete crap inside. Nothing you touched or looked at was quality. Cheap looking plastics, cheap feeling knobs and buttons. From about 45k miles on, the volume knob would always fall off on bumpy roads and screws would periodically fall out of the overhead console. Nice for a $30-40k vehicle at the time which had a $10k range quality interior. Don't get me started on rattles.
A wise decision!
Chrysler is the reason I operate on the theory that a car that is bad during the first 3 years or so will be exponentially worse during the following 3 years. If it sucks under the warranty, chances are it'll suck 100 times more after the warranty!
Agreed! The Astro is tough - but that's all I can say good about it. From the beginning, it was one of the poorest van designs ever made, well maybe it's better than the bread oven Toyota used to make where you sat next to the engine.....
Regards,
OW
If you think the Astro is a good example of a quality vehicle with a good interior then I can see why we are not connecting
I too got a good chuckle out of this.
In reading over some of the posts, its subtle differences, like Honda uses the same switch in a Fit, Civic, Accord, TSX, TL or just about everything, and its a high quality switch with good feel. GM uses a high quality switch with good feel in the Malibu and its siblings, but a totally craptastic feeling switch in the Cobalt and Aveo. The switches my work fine from a functional standpoint, but they are unsatisfying to use.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
If anyone knows anything about the affinity program, please visit that board and weigh in. Thanks.
Regards:
OldCEM
Good Lord, it sounds like my Dad dodged a bullet with those cars! Back in late 2003 he was in the market for a car, and we went to the same dealer that I got my 2000 Intrepid from. We took out a brand-new Dodge Stratus SXT, 4-cyl model. I actually liked the way it felt, at first. Good legroom up front and a decent driving position overall. I'd say slightly better than my larger Intrepid, mainly because the dead pedal was further forward, giving me more room to stretch my left leg. Oh, and I liked the car's styling. But that's where the compliments stopped. The car just felt cheap, like when you closed a door or the hood or trunk. The 4-cyl engine sounded like crap, and those had to be 150 of the weakest, most sickly horses I've ever seen!
My Dad was putting a lot of faith in my opinion, and said he breathed a sigh of relief when I said pass. He ended up with a used 2003 Regal that had about 19,000 miles on it. It felt like a much more substantial, sturdy car. I think the only thing he's had to replace on it so far were tires, brakes, and front rotors.
I also have to admit, I've thought once or twice about getting a used Sebring or Stratus to replace my aging Intrepid. Every once in awhile the local lot up the street gets some fairly low-mileage ones in, and they always seem to be priced reasonably. And I do like the style of the '01-06 models...not so much the '07 and newer. But from the sound of things maybe I'm better off hanging onto my 9 1/2 year old, 145,000 mile Intrepid!
May 5, 2009 - 12:01 am ET
Roger Penske is considering a bid for General Motors' Saturn brand, a source familiar with the auto entrepreneur's plans said today.
Penske is studying the issue but has made no proposals, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090505/ANA05/305049845/1078-
(registration link)
It's funny how everyone else in the world is so much more interested in taking on Saturn and turning it around than its own parent GM ever was.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM details plans to wipe out current shareholders
May 5, 2009 - 8:16 pm ET
DETROIT (Reuters) -- General Motors on Tuesday detailed plans to all but wipe out the holdings of remaining shareholders by issuing up to 60 billion new shares in a bid to pay off debt to the U.S. government, bondholders and the UAW.
The unusual plan, which was detailed in a filing with U.S. securities regulators, would only need the approval of the U.S. Treasury to proceed since the U.S. government would be the majority shareholder of a new GM, the company said
......GM shares closed on Tuesday at $1.85 on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock would be worth just over 1 cent if the first phase of GM's restructuring moves forward as described
And in the meantime the taxpayer bleeding continues:
The automaker said it expected to draw another $2.6 billion from the U.S. Treasury before a June 1 deadline set by the Obama administration for it to reach agreements with all of its key stakeholders.
That borrowing would take GM's debt to the U.S. government to $18 billion, and the automaker said it expected to have to borrow a total of nearly $27 billion.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090505/ANA02/305059892/1229-
(registration link)
This whole thing really stinks. The article goes on to describe how GM is hoping to screw over its creditors, bondholders, and the UAW healthcare trust fund before all its hijinx are complete. This is what happens when you use public money to leverage a chapter 11 reorganization of a company that should have been liquidated.
I guess we are supposed to think the silver lining is that the federal government will be the majority owner of GM after it's all done, if it goes ahead as planned. That's supposed to be a plus because we are supposed to feel more confident that we will get our money back as a result. But I have to ask myself: if I were running Ford right now, which will end up at a substantial disadvantage costwise if this plan succeeds, would I feel this whole thing to be a bit unfair???!!!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Government owns so much of all of these failed companies and yet doesn't actually put the damn hammer down and act like well, they own them.
The 99 Civic i drove for 78,000 miles in 5 years with 1 sensor going bad under warranty @ 35,700 miles. Beside oil & gas, the only expense was for new front brakes at 73,000 miles. .
Unfortunately, I had to get rid of the Civic after 5 years due to me blowing out my left knee that left me unable to push in the clutch w/o pain. I traded it in on a Toyota Solara in 04. I was given about 54% of sticker for trade in for the Civic after 5 years.
The Cavalier was no comparison in ride, quality, sound, or fun to drive as the Civic was. To me, it just does not make financial sense to buy a GM car. The resale value, quality issues and fun to drive factor of Asian companies' cars are much higher.
They did, when they fired Waggoner. Then everyone screamed and cried that they were interfering in private enterprise (which isn't so private anymore since they begged for taxpayer money and all).
I'd love to be a government-appointed hatchet-man to forcibly get the fat out of that bloated festering dead whale. Trim and trim and trim. And if GM is profitable with four plants and a half dozen vehicles, fine. They can rebuild from there. But bleeding tax payer money when schools are firing teachers in the middle of a huge brain-drain...(and that's only one of a thousand better uses...)
GM spent $10.2 billion more than it took in during the first quarter, a cash burn that was partially offset by $15.4 billion in federal loans that has kept the company afloat since December. GM ended the quarter with $11.6 billion in cash and marketable securities, down from $14.2 billion at the end of 2008.
The automaker's revenue was $22.4 billion down from $42.4 billion in the first quarter last year.
The loss of $9.78 per share, the automaker's eighth-straight quarterly loss, compares to a $3.3 billion net loss, or $5.80 per share, a year earlier.
Revenue in North America for the first quarter was $12.3 billion, compared to $24.5 billion a year ago.
The results fared better than the $11.05 per-share loss Wall Street was expecting, according to estimates of 10 analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial Network. With more than 610 million outstanding shares, that would have meant a loss of more than $6.7 billion.
"Our first quarter results underscore the importance of executing GM's revised viability plan, which goes further and faster to lower our break-even point," said GM President and Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson. "Our Plan is designed to fix the fundamentals of our business by restructuring and deleveraging our balance sheet, enhancing our revenue capability and dramatically reducing costs."
The automaker, surviving on $15.4 billion in federal loans, has until June 1 to reach money-saving concessions with the United Auto Workers and bondholders or face a potential Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. GM President and Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson has said a bankruptcy filing is probable but not the preferred route.
The loss comes on a day in which GM is restarting concessions talks with the UAW and presses ahead with plans to cut plants, jobs, dealerships and eliminate about $44 billion in debt as part of a broad restructuring plan.
GM's restructuring plan involves cutting 21,000 U.S. factory jobs by next year -- 7,000 more than originally planned -- and closing 16 of its 47 U.S. manufacturing plants by 2012.
GM also reiterated today that it plans additional cuts among the ranks of salaried employees and executives.
"This is a defining moment in the history of General Motors, and we are committed to our plan, which we believe will lead to a stable and sustainable operating structure with a strong balance sheet," said Henderson. "Our goal is to fix this business once and for all to position ourselves to win in the long-term."
http://detnews.com/article/20090507/AUTO01/905070437/1148/GM-posts-$6-billion-lo- ss-for-first-quarter
Well, I guess we're gonna say bye-bye to GM pretty soon.
Who would I hire? Whoever was best qualified to build the best car regardless of union affiliation or not. I would pay them fairly but not be a generous fool. If I treat my workers well and pay them a living wage, they'll have no need to unionize. If the automakers didn't treat their workers like expendable resources back in the 1920s and 1930s, there would never have been a UAW to worry about.
Now, if I had a bunch of drunken slacker idiots working for me who thought they could play the system, I'd toss them out on their butts with extreme prejudice.
Alternatively, I'd like to be a "peoples" appointed hatchet man to forcibly get the fat out of government in DC, State capitals, big cities such as Chicago, etc. In DC we could start with useless huge departments in education, energy, etc. GM is minor compared to fat in Government.
Agreed. I made a comment today that rubbed a few gov't people the wrong way. A couple months ago, some work was done in the lobby area outside my office, and a tv set that was mounted to the ceiling had to be taken down. It was never put back up, and has just been sitting out there on top a filing cabinet. Even when it was hooked up, it wasn't used all that often. Mainly just when there was some big press release, a shuttle launch, etc.
Well, today, I come in and see workers installing a new 30" or so flat screen tv in its place! The kicker, is that we're probably going to vacate this floor in abut a year, and move to another building. I made a comment along the lines of "our tax dollars at work!"
One of the gov't secretaries responded "well, we're the only ones that can afford something like that, I guess."
"Who, the taxpayers?" I replied.
"No, the gov't", she said.
"EXACTLY...the TAXPAYERS" I said, a little more emphatically.
She didn't like that, but oh well. :P
One other gov't lady heard our conversation, and later snubbed me in the hallway.
So, what percentage of the fuel efficient cars the Obama government is proposing to buy are GM? In California the myriad government agencies lean toward Hyundai and Toyota. Especially the Prius.
So, if Fiat gets Chrysler, and GM gets another slice of Fiat back, then GM winds up with some of Chrysler. Right?
The deal's based on GM's nice holdings in Latin America that Fiat would like, but you still have to wonder about these guys getting back together. The last go-round didn't work out so well.
I just wonder how many people will pay north of $50k for a Buick....
Reports say Renault-Nissan, Geely interested in GM brands
Renault is pursuing Saturn, while Chinese car company Geely is interested in Saab, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Meanwhile, Nissan, Renault’s partner, also is interested in Saturn and could team up with auto magnate Roger Penske, according to Bloomberg.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090506/CARNEWS/905069977
Seems like Saturn has enough legitimate interest to be fairly sure of having a buyer on the deadline date of September 1 this year. OTOH, you already hear news of Saturn dealers closing at an accelerated rate. Will there be enough to hang around and await the result of the search for a buyer to keep the thing rolling once the sale is complete?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Seems like Saturn has enough legitimate interest to be fairly sure of having a buyer on the deadline date of September 1 this year. OTOH, you already hear news of Saturn dealers closing at an accelerated rate. Will there be enough to hang around and await the result of the search for a buyer to keep the thing rolling once the sale is complete?
Which is why it is important for them to sell Saturn as quickly as possible. Saturn could have been a great asset for GM. They ruined this brand.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes, but when has the Government EVER been good at, or even successful at trimming the fat or running any agency efficiently???
Yes, but when has the Government EVER been good at, or even successful at trimming the fat or running any agency efficiently???
At this time, the Government is run by Democrats who are beholden to unions and especially to the UAW. This will make it very difficult for them to make any "management" decisions that aren't tilted towards their own self-interested goals, namely preserving the UAW at any cost. Not that Republicans would not go to the other extreme but my point is, they cannot run it with a market outlook that will be in the best interest of the company's long-term survival.
On a similar note, a survey pointed out that 20 percent of customers (including me)are less likely to buy from a company (GM, Chrysler) receiving gov't help. Was stepping in necessary? Who knows but it certainly ticked off some folks that otherwise might have considered those cars had they filed a straight bankruptcy and gone through a "normal" process.
Which in a sense I think is cutting off your nose to spite your face. If we, (the taxpayers) own the store right now, (GM, Chrysler) why not buy from your own store?
*****
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Struggling automaker General Motors reported a $6 billion loss during the first three months of the year Thursday, and said it will need more government loans soon as it tries to come up with a plan to stay out of bankruptcy.
*****
How about no? More and more and more... #1 should be to cut everything until they stop losing money. Then grow from there if they can. A good example was during Prohibition when many companies were faced with a choice - shut down or weather it out and diversify until they could get back to their business.
A balanced budget for GM should be mandatory as part of this deal. "We're bleeding out at a slower rate" isn't a "recovery". It's essentially corporate welfare, since by GM's own admissions, they show NO PLANS AT ALL TO BECOME PROFITABLE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. 5 billion, then 5 more, then 3 more, then another 2 more... it'll go down, but there doesn't ever seem to be a point where their expenses and profits will be in the black again. Well, not for at least a decade.
So cutting costs is mandatory. Even if it means massive layoffs and ugly consequences. A small but viable GM is the goal - or just get rid of it entirely and spend the money on EVs or other technologies.
*****
Most of the cash GM burned in the quarter came from the $9.4 billion in government loans it got during the first three months of the year. GM has received $15.4 billion in federal assistance since the end of last year.
*****
In essence, we've loaned more than 100% of GM's entire value to it and it's still bleeding to death. GM isn't *worth* 15.4 Billion. And now they'll ask for another 9 Billion? (see below)
*****
The company did not give any specific guidance about how much more cash it would burn during the rest of the year. But chief financial officer Ray Young suggested during a conference call Thursday morning that it will need to spend more money than previously forecast due to plans to significantly cut North American production and buy out dealerships.
*****
What's this idiocy about buying out dealerships? the government owns them now, so to bad, so sorry - go away already. If GM goes bankrupt, all of the idiocy goes away. No dealerships to pay off, no pension fund(government has been stuck with that mess anyways at this point), no UAW...They should have done so to begin with.
*****
Young said the company will need about $2.6 billion in additional federal loans this month as it tries to come up with a plan to stay out of bankruptcy. It will also need about $9 billion more through the rest of the year even if it stays out of bankruptcy. If approved, that would bring total government support for the company to $27 billion.
*****
27 billion? With no plan to balance their budget in any of that...