By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
This is reality:
I saw a couple of them at the Vancouver auto show, one on display was a Limited. Pretty impressive inside, heavy dose of Infiniti and Lexus. Styling isn't bad, but the front end is kind of garish, especially the chrome grille.
I want to "CALL-IN" the loan for immediate repayment!
Fed up Tax Payer R-US!
Good luck with that sucka!!!!
BTW, thanks for the "loan" so I could get my 2010 Lacrosse!
"GM's average transaction price in March was more than $4,200 higher than a year earlier and, Docherty said, about $4,000 per vehicle higher than the industry average. "These are strong results that validate our progress."
General Motors: Sticking to the Message (AutoObserver)
When the US is assured of an $8 billion dollar profit, like we're getting from CITI two years after their bailout, then sell.
The government-orchestrated shrinkage will cost taxpayers $30 billion, on top of $20 billion in U.S. funds already put into the company. In exchange, the U.S. will own 60% of the new GM. In all, the rescue of the car industry could cost taxpayers close to $100 billion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124385428627671889.html
What's GM repaid $2B of $ it was loaned, but didn't use. Not exactly Profits flowing in! And let's look at the facts of TARP. It seems like all the banks that got $ through TARP, owe less than just GM.
With the Citi sales and some other recently announced repayment plans, the government will have recouped more than $160 billion of the $204 billion it lent banks under the TARP capital purchase program.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/30/news/companies/banks.tarp.fortune/index.htm?eref- - - =aol
I think if GM stock ever does go public again, it might raise a few billion $'s, but that's about it. The vehicle industry in the U.S. has forever changed, the economy and our lifestyle have slid, and it's not to going to be a U.S. buying 17M vehicles/year of the type we're used to. So even the best auto companies aren't going to be making much profit. GM would be lucky to make enough profit just to pay interest on the loans!
Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. grabbed first place ahead of Toyota with a 29-per-cent gain in sales. While Chrysler fell just short of No. 2, its 22-per-cent increase allowed it to jump ahead of General Motors of Canada Ltd., which took fourth place.
Some hard to find positive news on the Chrysler front :surprise:
The GM slide pushed its market share down to just 14.7 per cent, a level it has not seen since the period between 1915 and 1919, said industry analyst Dennis DesRosiers, president of DesRosiers Automotive Consultants Inc. in Richmond Hill, Ont.
link title
This happened to one of my buddies Sierras not once, but twice. :sick: He was a service manager for a GMC/B/P dealer in NH and this was a very common problem for years.
However, the automaker says it still sees a chance of being profitable in 2010.
Lets start taking bets on whether GM has any profits in 2010. I'll bet no!
The captions these guys come up with are priceless...
I still remember the first time I saw one of the smaller H3's on the road. It had been in an accident, rear-ending a late 90's vintage Plymouth Voyager. And the H3 definitely looked like it got the worst of it!
Why don't we know what the government plan is if GM does not make a profit soon, and is unable to go public? Or even if they do go public, and the losses continue, then what? another bailout? What is the plan if the new GM fails also. That is highly likely given that they are doing business the same old way, selling the same old type of vehicles (meaning - not the same exact models, but nothing revolutionary; Volt being 40K units is insignificant) that they went bankrupt with.
What's the current plan today? How long can GM afford to lose before they are broke again, or don't have enough cash for operations?
They are too big to fail! Besides, they keep ensuring they will pay the $4.6B back by June. Not to worry!
Cadillac is not included in the payback since they are distancing themselves from GM, so we need to rely on Buick to support "The Plan". This includes China.
Regards,
OW
The $ they're paying back is simply a small part of what they were given in the last 2 years. It's just the excess they hadn't used. I wouldn't be surprised if they were given excess $ at the time, all for the exact purpose that they could then make everyone look good by paying some back. It's like a bank giving you a$300K home equity loan on your $250K house, so that you can have extra $ to make payments back to the bank, and then you and the bank both look like good honest citizens.
From the WSJ I posted the article day they figure Chrysler and GM together might have cost the taxpayer $100B. I guess they're figuring all the bills GM didn't pay, which would be income to other suppliers and be taxed, they're pushing pension costs to the government, and various direct loans directed to the auto industry.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/109278/worst-made-cars-on-the-road?- mod=family-home
Almost.....but people want, and will pay a premium for SUV's. After all, truck/SUV's and Vettes are where GM makes a profit!
Not when gas prices go back to over $4 dollars a gallon they won't be!! Then they will all be sitting for months on GM lots and they won't be able to even give them away! That is were GM has screwed up in the past. Focusing on sport cars, trucks/SUVs when gas prices fluctuate so dramatically for no reason! Its nice that they finally got the slap in the face and are finally focusing on fuel efficiency with things like the Volt, etc. Took long enough though!
Except the 'Slade has the work quality/dependability. :lemon:
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
They will have it made in the 'Slade'!
General Motors Co. estimates the Cruze Eco's highway fuel economy at 40 mpg. EPA ratings for the Eco and the standard Cruze compact are not yet available.
Russell said the Eco will be more expensive than the base Cruze, but the premium will be nowhere near as high as the cost of hybrid technology.
"Will we charge for the benefit? Yes. Will it be thousands? No," he told Automotive News at the New York auto show. "In fact, it will be in the hundreds."
http://www.autonews.com/article/20100412/RETAIL03/304129975/1430
This one is a little frustrating because they say it will be "Eco" but they don't say what they have done to MAKE it Eco and they don't release EPA estimates showing it will top the 40 mpg rating the regular Cruze has.
So this could end up being an announcement without substance. But it would be neat if they could produce a Cruze that made a COMBINED 40 mpg, not just 40 for the elusive and somewhat meaningless highway figure that commuters will never achieve.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This does remind me of the Cobalt XFE, which topped the Corolla/Civic with highway mpg of 37. However, it is a manual, and not a very sporty one. Didn't do much for the lame duck.
And the Aveo is Korean.
About a month ago, I had my '85 Silverado at the transmission shop for a servicing, and the owner and I started talking cars, high prices, how they don't build 'em like they used to, and so on. He mentioned a Colorado that he had in for some work because the 4wd wasn't engaging. Turns out it was some little control device mounted inside, under the seat, that had failed. A little $300 part that weighed a few ounces and had a "Denso" label on it.
It's kinda sad, but as outdated as the Ford Ranger is these days, I can actually respect the little truck for trying, and Ford for at least attempting to keep it up to date. I wonder if GM would've been better off just updating the S10, rather than replacing them with the Colorado/Canyon. IIRC, the S10 actually had a higher payload and towing capacity, thanks to its 4.3 V-6. But then, didn't the Colorado/Canyon eventually get the 5.3 V-8 as an option?
One thing they tried doing right was share components with the Trailblazers I-6. I-4-5-6 sharing many parts, just like the 350 and V6 that sprung from it, the 4.3.
Basically, aero tweaks and really tall gearing. 40 mpg combined would be nice, but simply isn't going to happen for a 1.5 ton brick without diesel and/or electric power.
What is $40 billion these days?
I'd like to split it with you, and if we budget we should be able to get by.
Don't think that the 60billion is just for auto workers! I know that GM (Generosity Motors) could use some more cash....
Let's not minimize GM & Chrysler's collosal failures. They didn't just fail. They failed miserably.
There on the job performance across the board is the equivalent of a Major League Baseball Player going an entire season and putting up the following stats:
600 AB
.009 Batting AVG
6 Hits
1 Double
1 Triple
1 Homer
3 Runs
3 RBI's
594 Strikeouts
In other words, GM & Chrysler executives have about as much ability running a car company as a player worse than all major league players that have ever played the game.
But Chrysler at least had the excuse of what Daimler did to it. In GM's case, it was all them, baby. :sick:
And the QX isn't much better. And the LX 470 rolls over better than a dog (which it is)
AMEN to that. I don't think that gets enough attention. Daimer almost gets a free pass for what they did. Daimler should be responsible for half what it cost us for Chrysler if they want to sell cars here again.
But no dealer will stock them because they are manual-only, and the few people like me that might buy one will find that they can't have cruise control (or A/C, or dare I say it? A moonroof!) because Eco is really code for "stripped" even though GM vigorously denies that. :-(
Looks like the new Fiesta will give this a run for its EPA money, but the larger point here, I think, is that the Japanese are TOTALLY falling behind in the fuel economy race in sub-$20K cars....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Since Obama took office in Jan, 2009, gasoline prices have shot up 43 percent. If they go up to near $4/gal, expect that big SUVs like the Slade will be sitting in dealer's lots.
Didn't Chrysler choose the bed and partner they slept with?
If so, it's on them for choosing a bad partner. If you ask me, Chrysler got everything it deserved from the bed they chose.