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
:shades:
Success should have zilch to do with market share... :sick:
Never happen. I would spend my new car money on restoring my Wildcat, and then drive it into the ground. When I'm done, then I would RE-restore it and drive it into the ground again befor I'd embrace Geely.
GM has been designing their newest models worldwide for the last few years now, as their platforms are being used worldwide (Epsillon II and Delta II for example). So it has been a worldwide effort, rather than an "outsourcing" of work to other countries. Where I would take issue with it is if a car like the Corvette, or the trucks, which are primarily for N.A. consumption were to be designed elsewhere.
We are making money at the price that we announced. We priced the car to be affordable. We priced it for mass adoption
When they REALLY pay back the bailout, improve their product line-up to REALLY be the best, I MIGHT go back to the thieving GMAC dealer if the Finance Guy was fired. If he's still there, NO DEAL no matter what!
The politician rhetoric is flagrant in EVERY GM MARKETING release! Pretty Darn Funny! :P
Regards,
OW
"See! We told you we deserved the bailout! We paid it back in full! Now buy our cars, or else!!.....(We threaten to fail again and you all need to give us more bailout cash!)
I'll let you know when they paid back in full. Give us all a break!
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
I would much rather they pay back the loans. I just would wish they would pay it back in full, instead of about 5% of the original layout. They've only paid back like 5% of the assistance they were given, anyway you slice it and dice it, it's a miniscule payback amount.
I would like them to pay back all of the bailout monies, whether they are called a loan or not. I don't care what you call it, I want my $60 billion back, not just 4.7 billion. I'll take a 60 billion dollar loan anyday if I only have to pay back 4.7 billion of it!!!
Personally, I think the GM bailout was more about job preservation, contractor/vendor impacts and industrial base sustainment, rather than perserving GM per se. The public is upset about bailouts, and rightfully so given many people's personal financial predicaments. However, sometimes a leader has to step up and make unpopular decisions based on longer term strategic concerns. I believe that is what drove Bush and Obama, rather than some government power or control thing, and I think the GM decision will turn out to be correct years down the road in the history books. A sudden collapse of GM would have likely cascaded through a large amount of the US industrial base causing great financial and massive job loss havoc, and it would have happened quickly affecting far more than GM. Its vendor impact would have even hurt Toyota and Honda, and both have stated such. The massive impact from those job losses (vendors, dealers, etc., not just GM) would have made the housing and economic collapse much worse, likely led to far more bank loan defaults and I doubt we'd be seeing the glimpses of recovery this early had all of that happened. (The Korean government has been very helpful to Hyundai over the years, but people don't seem to get worked up about that - Hyundai is the new auto star). A strong country needs a strong industrial base. I don't see us staying strong if we become a country of financiers, lawyers and computer geeks. China, India, Brazil can all do those things too. We need white and blue collar jobs with a strong, diversified economic base.
What has come out of all of this Wall Street and executive fiasco obviously has made us all a bit more cynical. I thought Goldman Sachs was disgusting this past week. A lot of people don't like Bush and Obama. I don't agree with some of the things either has done. But I do believe that both of these presidents have done what they think is best for the country and don't deserve all of the nasty disrespect they are both being shown in our country. We are a better country than this, but I think the behavior in Congress is responsible for some of this growing incivility and rudeness in America.
10-15 mpg under hard accel in a 5400 lb truck? Thats a 50-100% increase from today. Dropping vehicle weight by 2% wont get you that. The aerdynamic drag just wont let it get 40 mpg hwy either. You talk 100% increases like that is no big deal. 10% is a big deal in reality. Trucks typically have to be geared to pull 8500 lbs.
Heck, I can get the mpg computer on the Park Ave to read 2-3 mpg instantaneous under just semi-hard acceleration. I'd presume a 5400 lb truck with a big V-8 would be slightly worse. :P
But GM failed, Toyota did not. Do you really believe auto jobs suffer more than the other 12 million out of work??
Simple business. Toyota products were better....not the best anymore. Now they add incentives to move the products. Sounds like the path GM must take. That never changed.
If you're working in a rapidly changing industry, with fierce competition, don't expect to stay fat and lazy forever....and then go back to the same BS after accepting bailouts. :lemon:
Now Hyundai leads all in best value and brand presentation. Like it or not.
Ford still needs a long way to go but is spanking GM because they swallowed their debt and moved on. Their problem remains the UAW anchor around their necks.
Regards,
OW
Spoken like a true fear mongerer. I can almost hear the haunting music in the back ground as I read it.
I like the keyword in the start of your paragraph "likely." Certainly far from certain, and in my opinion highly unlikely as other auto manufacterers would have gladly and happily picked up the slack caused by GM & Chrysler's departure. History has already shown the saving of GM and Chrysler was a terrible decision. All we have to do is look back less than 40 years for the last time Chrysler was bailed out, and it resulted in another recent bailout yet again. I fear the 3rd won't be 40 years down the road however, but sooner. History has shown bailouts lead to inevitable failure. History will repeat itself; of that I am certain.
I agree America needs a good balanced and strong economy that is diversified. However, we need American coporations with new blood, new ideas, and smart, successful employees and workers. We do not need incompetent, failed, and proven poor performers like GM and Chrysler around (who happen to be filled with failures for employees). They are like dead weight on our economy. They anchor us down and make it hard to rise. We need to cut off the anchor, and start the healing faster. We are just pouring salt on the wounds right now, while taking pain relievers so that we don't feel it as hard. The sooner we cut out the dead weight, the sooner we can commence the real healing.
We can have a strong industrial base, but we will never have one as long as GM and Chrysler are around.
Once you know, you're gone...unless you forget a whole heck of a lot, you have no real excuse to support them by buying into their hollow campaign/advertising junk.
The consumer always forgets how much power they have...cars are now commodities and the best ones are NOT made in America for a long time...the votes keep coming in and GM's share will never regain dominance of the market forever.
I can't wait until a hungry company gobbles up the remnants of the Lost Empire once and for all! :shades:
By the way, I saw 4 Genesis coupes in my town today alone....looks like there are some smart buyers making moves in this economy.
Regards,
OW
We may disagree, but I don't think it is fear mongering. Quite a few companies and economists believe the rapid decompression of the contractors and dealers, and resulting loss of jobs, would have been very significant, and many competitors were openly concerned about their vendor survival if GM went out fast. The other makers can't just ramp up production overnight to make up the volume difference and significant fixed cost increases would be incurred to get to those higher volumes quickly. GM isn't all a bunch of losers. Whitacre and some of the execs he has brought on board have pretty impressive resumes with a lot of accomplishments. I don't think we should keep throwing money around, but if GM doesn't make it, a slow unwinding will have a lot less impact and the rest of the industry will have time to react more economically. You also forget that the first Chrysler bailout actually yielded the government a rather quick profit on the deal. If GM turns around over the next few years, the government may more than make up what it shelled out once again. I also have to ask why you are so intolerant of GM, but don't seem to be upset by the tax monies thrown at transplant plant locations by state and local governments, or by the government support many of these foreign car companies received over the years from their home governments?
I don't forget that. I'm just good at math and I know when you factor in the more recent bailouts that small "profit" from before is very penny wise and pound foolish. I'll take that deal any day. I'll give you the profit Chrysler gave the government from the first bailout, and you give me the amount they've wasted in this current Century, and we'll call it a deal!!! Would you like that deal? Let's make that trade!
I don't have problems with tax subsidies to transplants because it was entirely optional, entirely their choice, and up to the "free" markets. There is a big difference between bailouts forced onto the tax paying public in a "government power grab takeover," and incentivizing business from the tax payers choice to do so in the first place.
I don't have problems with governments supporting companies as long as it isn't my government or the government which takes MY money in the form of taxes. If others want to subsidize, that is their choice and let them. However, I don't want MY money helping these proven failed companies. If it's YOUR money, fine, but not MY money.
You are right; GM has some recent hires that do have a decent resume. That doesn't change the fact that their performance was abysmal and MOST of those abysmal performers are still working there.
More than likely these were people paid for (research grant, vacation-fact-finding trips ...) by GM or Chrysler lobbyists. Gm only has a 15% market-share. Suppliers who do business with GM would simply stop making GM parts and make more of the other companies' parts. The hurt would be they wouldn't get paid for what GM owed them or any inventory.
The other makers can't just ramp up production overnight to make up the volume difference and significant fixed cost increases would be incurred to get to those higher volumes quickly.
They didn't need to ramp up overnight. There are typically 60 day supplies of vehicles on the lots and in-transit. There is quite a bit of excess global capacity in making autos. Many auto manufatcurers are only running their plants 1 or 2 shifts, so it wouldn't be that difficult to add a shift at some of those plants. With the drop of the auto market here in the U.S. from 17M to 11-12M vehicles, if GM and Chrysler closed their doors, the other auto suppliers would not have had to add anybody; just maintain their production.
Your town needs to adjust. Ask your politicians why there was not more employment diversity.
Here is So. Cal we lost a LOT more jobs in aerospace over the past 15 years than any auto city did. Yet somehow I missed that multi-$billion bailout.
Vendor cash flow was the urgent issue. Other auto makers were concerned about vendor bankruptcies if GM just quickly shut its doors. Vendor failures could disrupt other automakers production lines. The government was concerned about a potentially large increase in job losses.
If a GM failure was going to be such an easy business bonanza then why were firms like Ford and Toyota actively lobbying to keep GM from doing a sudden bankruptcy? I would think they would have been doing the opposite in that situation.
I'm actually not a big believer in government involvement in business operations, except I can tolerate limited actions in crisis situations. I recognize there are contrasting opinions on this at every level be it economists, academics, politicians, or tax paying citizens. I guess time will tell on GM. My biggest complaint is that too often people that oppose it cite a $60B loss of tax monies when in fact the net amount will be far less in the end, or possibly even a government net gain. Unless GM ceases to exist in the near future, the new GM stock will be issued and the government will recoup monies when that happens. How much depends on a number of issues, but will be largely affected by how wisely they sell it. If they dump their warrants/shares quickly for political reasons they will net far less than if they let professional financial firms unwind the position over time.
Ironically, I generally don't support state and local tax incentives and subsidies to private companies because of two reasons. Data tends to indicate they usually never yield anywhere where they are projected to and those decisions are made without taxpayer input just like the GM bailout, but without a potential crisis situation. There is no free lunch and tax monies that are forgone on the incentives must be made up by other taxpayers (corporate and individuals).
It does bother me that countries like Korea hugely incentivize and assist their export industries because it puts domestic firms here at a pricing disadvantage. If that advantage comes from better product and business practices it wouldn't bother me, but I think much of it comes from Asian government and banking games. The lower profitability that creates for US companies means less tax revenues and jobs for Americans. Further, Korea also puts big restrictions on many US businesses trying to sell in their market while we continue to pay for a large chunk of their defense. I only use Korea as an example, because many other countries do similar things.
Bottom line, when you think about it, "your" money does get at least indirectly impacted by state and local business tax incentives and by foreign government subsidies to their export companies. I believe you are from California. While the UAW was definitely a factor, state taxpayer subsidies elsewhere also played into Toyota's decision to shut the Freemont plant, as well as the loss of aerospace jobs to places like Arizona.
Go to any place where the industrial base has collapsed and tell me if it is any better than before the collapse?
looks like there are some smart buyers making moves in this economy
Looks to me like some visually-impaired drivers need to have their licenses revoked.
I guess the Genesis owner's manuals must be printed in Braille.
Pittsburgh.
You do know what our #1 cash crop is here in CA, don't you? :P
Yeah, but that's okay, as it's mainly used for medicinal purposes.
Regards,
OW
While I agree with most of what you stated, the fact is there are a lot of suppliers who's bread and butter is / was GM and/or Chrysler. These suppliers have a majority if not all of their products in their vehicles so if GM or Chrysler went down, they go down too. And these aren't just the Tier 2 or 3 suppliers, there are more Tier 1 suppliers out there than you'd think that continue to run their business that way.
One of the companies I used to work for was short-sighted in that manner - it wasn't until GM and really Chrysler, came down with that ridiculous cost-cutting measure that our higher-ups finally realized the "all eggs in one basket" way of doing business was not the answer. Unfortunately too many suppliers, and the local businesses and towns, think the plant's going to be there forever.
There are also other factors too, such as suppliers who don't have the quality, expertise, location, flexibility in transitioning from one product to another. Designs that were "ok" for GM may not be "ok" with Honda or Ford. More times than not OEMs will pick the cheapest, I mean "price competitive", not the most robust or reliable. Not trying to make excuses for them or for the OEMs, but it's not as easy as it seems.
And you're better off with one too. The '58 is worth more. Always has been, always will be.
Blinded by our great, reliable, GM products. They are what they are. Whine all you want, but you can't change our minds based on our experiences, OVER and OVER and OVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
2005-2006 model year Chevrolet Corvettes built between March 2004 and January 2006, and equipped with the tilt and telescoping steering wheel.
It's popular and politically-correct for those who feel especially-entitled to bash GM or any auto dealership & service-dept.
In the new model department, they are dropping the HHR SS for 2011 , just as it started to interest me. But I'm not bashing GM, really!
(For 2011, I'll consider the base-model HHR with stickshift too.)
Nothing wrong with turning a profit. No doubt dealers need to make money. As a matter of fact I've never put more money into the local economy than I did with my GM product. $1000 here and $1,500 there.
I don't have a problem paying a little more if I get better service. But if I'm not happy with your product and I find a different product from another dealer or manufacturer that I like more, why should you expect me to return?
My wife and I just bought a new travel trailer last week. We bought the model we wanted from a local dealer. I could have bought it from a wholesale dealer a few states away for a few thousand less even with delivery fees, but I believe in supporting local businesses when I can. That said, I still made a few other dealers unhappy because I spent time with them looking over their models and negotiated prices and still went elsewhere. I'm sure they're not happy I bought from a competitor, but I can't make everyone happy.
I think that's universal whether it's a boat dealer, RV dealer, or even the local computer store. That and I've witnesses first hand, many are upset about the GM bailout. I can't tell you how many people I've come across that have said I will avoid GM just because of that. If they go an buy a Ford, how is that bad? Ford is just as deserving of the business.
That said, honestly, I've had pretty good service at the variety of dealerships I've dealt with. Sure, I didn't always appreciate the bill, but that's part of owning complex machines.
As far as Bashing GM, yeah, I'm guilty. But I bash based on my experience with the product. I've had bad Fords too, and it took me a while to buy another.
And yet the reality is that this is the trend for manufacturing concerns everywhere, not just in automobiles. To be flexible enough to deal with major spikes or troughs in demand or the global economy, not to mention currency fluctuations, you have to keep a percentage of your workforce as temporary rather than permanent, so that you can reduce the size of your workforce quickly when it is necessary to do so.
More and more companies do this now, my employer among them.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Personally, I had some bad GM products in the past, and I've had some great and some not so great Asian vehicles, but its not healthy to hang on to remorse or hate. Nor is it smart to buy things strictly using the rear view mirror because truth changes over time. If GM proves over time they have competitive products and prices, I'll consider one in the future because ultimately I'm driven by the best value, not all the pro and con blabber.
I understand that lots of people are upset because of the bail out. I'm not happy about bailing out Wall Street. I realize I'm biased but I think GM will come out of this strife a lot stronger and much more humble. Ford is making huge strides as well! I'm not so sure about Chrysler. I don't see a very cohesive plan there.
I agree that a customer should purchase the vehicle they love. Whether they make that decision on price, styling, fuel efficiency, resell value....etc. Once again, the purpose for my original post was to point out that so many topics turn out to be BASH GM. There are many loyal GM customers who are deserving of respect.
Sounds like those suppliers deserved to go bankrupt for choosing the wrong companies to do business with as their "bread and butter." Poor business decisions like doing most of your business with 2 bankrupt (morally and financially) companies should lead to your own bankruptcy. Nothing wrong with that. It's not like GM and Chrysler went downhill overnight. They were on a downward trajectory for decades.
I agree, just like you can't change people's minds who have actually owned a Toyota or two in the past. (or three, or four, or five...)
Good points. You do realize that most manufacturer-boards have a lot of bashing.
There is also a "GM Fans" board which is much more complimentary.
Pittsburgh
I'd have to agree with that, but surely you know that for every Pittsburgh there are 100 cases that have turned out worse. I grew up in a small (under 10K) town with heavy industry that provided living wages for a lot of folks for decades, just 60 miles north of Pittsburgh. Most all of the industries are gone now. The results? Doesn't take Einstein to figure it out. NAFTA was the last nail in the coffin there.
Bill
I try not to bash. I prefer to call it "constructive criticism". :shades:
I think they have an interesting and likely viable plan for Chrysler, I just don't think it will be Chrysler when they are all done with it. It will be the Ram truck company, and the Alfa/Fiat/Abarth/Italian weirdness company, perhaps even with separate dealer networks just for the trucks. Where will Jeep be? That is the only question in my mind. I assume it will persevere because it has been fairly profitable for every owner it has had, but it won't be your father's Jeep any more.
As for GM, it may come out stronger (at ENORMOUS expense to all its former suppliers, cast-off dealers, and the American public), but I seriously doubt it will come out more humble. For that to happen, they needed to fire every last white collar worker that company had, which of course they didn't.
Even as I was making preparations after the Wall Street bailouts to quit doing business with Bank of America after 20 years because they took bailout money, they repaid the money in its entirety. So I stayed a customer for now. I make a sincere effort not to do business with any company that got a bailout and didn't pay it back, and I will continue doing so. I have no faith that all the money GM took will ever be paid back, so I guess it is off my list permanently. Who knows, perhaps the IPO will be some historic whopper of an initial offering and prove me wrong.....but then, why would someone pay $130/share for GM? That's a figure grossly higher than the prospects of this company reflect, IMHO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)