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
I briefly owned a 1986 Monte Carlo, for three months in 1998. My Mom bought it brand-new, as a leftover, for around $14.5K out the door. 305 V-8, base hubcaps (which IMO still looked better than most plastic wheelcovers, and even some alloys, of today), a/c, nice sound system with the 5-band equalizer, tilt, cruise, two-tone gray over silver. Crank windows and manual locks, though. I remember when Mom bought it, my Granddad teased her for getting a "cheap" car. Nevermind the fact that my grandparents were relative newcomers to all that power stuff themselves. Their '85 LeSabre, which also got handed down to me, was their first, and only, really luxuriously equipped car. And Granddad's '85 Silverado, which I still have, also came with power windows/locks.
That Monte was a good car, too. Mom gave it to me with 179,000 miles on it, and as far as I know, nothing really serious ever went wrong with it. I think it needed a water pump, maybe an alternator. And the metal tubes that run from the air pump to the exhaust manifold had rusted and needed to be replaced. And, while I had it, the windshield wiper motor went out.
I delivered pizzas back then, and managed to put 13,000 miles on that sucker in 3 short months. And then, one pleasant Friday night, June 15, around 9:00, the car was taken from me. I had just pulled away from the store, and was having a great night so far, making about $60 in tips in just 4 short hours. But alas, a girl in a 1992 Tempo ran a stop sign and T-boned me.
With 192,000 miles on it, that car still ran pretty good, but did smoke a little on start-up and hard acceleration. Not blue smoke though, just gray. And it was carboned up enough that it had a preference for 89 octane or higher. I wonder, sometimes, just how long that car would have lasted if it hadn't gotten wrecked. My guess is that it would be gone by now, as the Gran Fury that replaced it logged about 45,000 miles, then the Intrepid that came after that logged around 150,000 before being totaled in a parking lot hit-and-run, and I've put around 11,000 miles on the Park Ave since I bought it.
So, if that Monte was still around, it would have around 398,000 miles on it! It was a good car, but my guess is something would have killed it eventually...most cars simply do not live that long. And, if it was still around, it would've been it rather than the Intrepid that got hit-and-runned in the parking lot. Somehow though, I have a feeling the Monte would have survived that better than the Intrepid did. The low-slung front of the Trep is what did it in, as whatever hit it sort of rode up over the front corner, tore into it, and snagged the wiring harness. The Monte would probably have been just shoved aside a bit, and probably would have done a good little number on whatever hit it!
I could live with these if I had an 80s MC.
Less than one mile from my house is a small auto-repair shop. Sitting next to the building for the past several months, although it does move from time-to-time, is a light blue metallic '86-88 Monte Carlo LS, dark blue vinyl top, with these wheels and all center caps intact. The car still turns my head every time, although has rustout along the bottom of the doors which makes me fear what the frame looks like.
Most of the attention was put on the SS model those last few model years, but I always thought that LS revision in '86 was handsome. In fact, in '86 some Montes were the old '85 and earlier style, and some were the LS. Strange. Maybe the LS wasn't available at the beginning of the year, I'm not sure...by then I was a working adult!
My Mom's '86 was just a base model, and not an LS, so it still had the regular quad headlights. And hers was a leftover model, as she bought it in late September of 1986, so I'm guessing the base model ran through the whole model year.
According to my old car book, they built around 50,000 base Montes, 27,000 LS models, and 41,000 SS'es (and another 200 Aerocoupes).
For 1987, the base model was dropped completely, leaving just the LS and the SS. I didn't really care for that LS style when it first came out, but then sometimes it takes a few years for a new style to grow on me. I rather like it now. And in 1986, it was only about $200 more than the base coupe, so it seemed like a good deal for the money. I'm not sure what all you got extra for that $200, but I remember the LS had a pretty nice velour interior, in contrast to the more "mousefur" texture that my Mom's base model had. And you got that more rounded front-end, and the SS taillights. Did the LS have standard sport wheels too, perhaps?
Funny, my grandpa was the same way. He loved his Buicks and Oldsmobiles but in the early 80's when the push to FWD was occurring, he staid RWD until the the late '90s when he finally bought a P/A.
I didn't loose interest in new cars in the 80's because I was interested Porsches, Mustangs, Camaros, Civic Si's, MR2s, Preludes, RX-7s etc. So there was plenty to keep my interest. I never cared for large BOF cars, so, seeing them go didn't bothered me.
When I was in High school in the late 80's, he'd occasionally let me drive it on Friday nights. Had a lot of fun in that car. It wasn't crazy fast (just being a carbed 305), but it sounded great and looked awesome. So, yeah at 17 I thought I was the $#!% cruising around in that.
For some reason I never took a picture of it.
When I was in college, there was a later Monte in the parking lot of the building where I lived...I never met the owner. It was one of the facelift models with flush lights (so not an SS), the "Euro" look as it was called. The car was black, loaded (I am pretty sure it had t-tops), and had those wheels. It was in excellent condition, and seemed like nice and very unusual car even then, in the late 90s.
I think those wheels were also offered on SS models in the Mexican market.
I have a friend who has an 85 SS...his childhood dream car, he bought it about 10 years ago when it had maybe 50 K miles on it, and it was fairly mint. Sadly, it got smashed by an idiot girl who ran a red light in a Sentra, and had to be repainted. He still has it, but as he now has family and is a workaholic, I don't think it sees the road much. I drove it once. Sounded nice, but handling was a little iffy :shades:
I was under the impression (although far from certain) that the LS model in '86 was to replace the Monte Carlo Sport Coupe, sometime through the model year, but maybe not. Andre, your grandmother's sounds like a nice car. It was a V8 with two-tone paint and equalizer radio, with the standard steel full wheel covers? Wonder if somebody ordered it, then cancelled it. Seems like most Montes by then had the optional Rally Wheels (a steal at $56) or the optional wire wheel covers.
The interior of the '86 "base" Monte and the LS were identical, except for "Luxury Sport" written on the steering wheel. Both had an optional "CL" interior which gave you deep-tufted seats in velour and nicer door panels. I thought even the standard Monte Carlo seats and dash and door panels were nice enough for me.
My '81 and '82 Montes were built in Baltimore, but Dad's '84 was built in Arlington, TX (all three sold at the same NW PA dealer). I remember that '87 and '88 MC's were built at Pontiac, MI, and I remember an owner survey of some sort that said Montes at that time had the sloppiest fit and finish of all the cars surveyed! I still like them though. Elegant, and a human-sized back seat.
He used to joke that "CL" stood for "Celebrity"
His SS is black with burgundy interior. It might be around 65K miles now.
I always used to think it stood for "Classic". Mainly because for 1983, in the Malibu's last year, it was just called "Malibu", with no upscale "Classic" series. But there was a trim package that put a "CL" badge on the trunk lid, and I think it was pretty much the equivalent of what the old Malibu Classic had been.
I can't remember what they did for 1982 though, when all the cars were called "Malibu Classic" with no base Malibu series.
A buddy of mine in high school and college had a 1985 Cavalier that had a "CS" badge on the trunk. But for the life of me, I don't know what kind of trim level that denoted, unless it was just the cheapest series? I remember it had one of those cloth interiors that was so cheap, that vinyl was considered an upgrade, and door panels that were plastic slabs with fake stitching molded in, and cheap, rubbery, bolt-on armrests. Cheap, basic car, but it wasn't a horrible car. It had a pretty nice sound system, actually, with the same head unit as my grandmother's '85 LeSabre. And it even did something her LeSabre didn't. Both radios had 4 station pre-set buttons, but on the Cavalier, you could actually program in 7 different stations, by hitting two side-by-side buttons at once. The LeSabre didn't have that feature. And I don't think my Mom's '86 Monte Carlo did, either, although it had the cool 5-band equalizer.
Now that I think about it, my great-aunt (Granddad's baby sister) had an '86 Monte Carlo, base model. It was white with a blue interior. And now that I think about it, I believe it was the upgraded CL interior. At least, I seem to remember it having a nicer interior than Mom's '86, although that was a long time ago, so I could be mistaken. And Mom's had a burgundy interior, which, IMO, wasn't quite as classy as that blue, so it could have just been the color playing tricks with my mind.
For a base level car, I guess that "mouse fur" that Mom's '86 had in it wasn't too bad. It was definitely a major step up from my old '80 Malibu coupe, which just had vinyl. My '82 Cutlass Supreme was nicer though, IMO. It had a cloth interior that had a corduroy pattern, but was nice, soft, and comfortable. I really loved the color of that Cutlass. It was a pale silvery green color. However, GM offered several close colors that year. One was called "light jadestone" and the other was simply "silver green". I think mine was the "silver green', as the jadestone seems to have just a bit more blue to its hue. It had the Olds Rallye wheels done up to match, landau top in that same color, and the interior as well.
Unfortunately that '82 Cutlass turned out to be a total piece, but I can't totally blame GM. It was 11 years old and had 61,000 miles on it when I bought it, and I only paid $800 for it.
A big cut in research and development spending while General Motors was in bankruptcy protection set the company's new product plans back by about a year, its top executive said Tuesday.
Chairman and CEO Daniel Akerson told reporters GM is working to accelerate vehicle plans that were postponed when R&D spending was cut to $5 billion per year as the company was trying to save money during its 2009 stay in bankruptcy protection. The spending has since been restored to $7 billion.
Miles to Go...
Regardless the defending chatter, facts are hard to ignore: GM, he said, has a lot of new vehicles in the pipeline, but the gap will let the company concentrate on the Cruze, the first credible compact car in GM's history.
I love when they finally are honest about the state of the moment. AFAIC, this is the news that counts to me...no cloaking just honesty. :shades:
Regards,
OW
General Motors captured 9.4 percent of China's passenger vehicle market in the first 11 months of 2010, up from 9 percent in 2009. But the U.S. automaker still trails longtime leader Volkswagen AG in China.
The German automaker, which markets Volkswagen, Skoda and Audi brands, commands a whopping 16.6 percent share of the Chinese passenger vehicle market.
But GM has become a recognized leader among global players operating in China in two important market segments: subcompacts and small commercial vehicles.
GM is the first global automaker to launch a locally developed, inexpensive subcompact that caters to less affluent consumers in China's vast interior regions.
The model, the Chevrolet New Sail, went on sale in January 2010 and was mainly developed by Shanghai-based Pan Asia Technical Automotive Center, a joint venture of GM and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp.
Prices start at 60,000 yuan, or about $9,066. It was China's top-selling subcompact in November with over16,000 sales.
The New Sail's success has prompted other automakers to follow suit. Honda Motor Co. and PSA Peugeot Citroen plan low-priced models for China.
GM, along with its Chinese partners, also has become a leader in building small commercial vehicles to take advantage of the country's low-cost production base.
SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co., established in 2002, is a joint venture of SAIC, GM and Liuzhou Wuling Automotive Co. With technology and management support from GM, it is now China's largest micro commercial vehicle manufacturer with sales of more than 1 million minivans and micro trucks through November.
GM has a strong market position in China. It sold 1,022,042 Buick, Chevrolet and Cadillac units through November, up 49 percent from 2009.
With a broad product lineup and a clear management and marketing vision, GM is well positioned to gain strength in China in 2011.
Should be Kazakhstan! Kazakhstan is the greatest country in the world! All other countries are run by little girls!
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A Congressional oversight panel says that a "starkly improved" outlook for the auto industry has reduced the likely taxpayer loss on the bailout by more than half to about $19 billion.
The previous estimate from the panel was that taxpayers would lose $40 billion of the $81.3 billion given to the automakers and their finance arms from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
But the Congressional report also says that there are significant consequences of the bailout which go beyond the loss of tax dollars.
"Treasury's rescue suggested that any sufficiently large American corporation -- even if it is not a bank -- may be considered 'too big to fail,' creating a risk that moral hazard will infect areas of the economy far beyond the financial system," it said.
"Further, the fact that the government helped absorb the consequences of GM's and Chrysler's failures has put more competently managed automotive companies at a disadvantage. For these reasons, the effects of Treasury's intervention will linger long after taxpayers have sold their last share of stock in the automotive industry."
Auto bailout's estimated cost to taxpayers: $19 billion
:P
Regards,
OW
Expressing concern about rusting brake lines rupturing and causing crashes, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has intensified an investigation into almost 1.8 million Government Motors pickups and S.U.V.’s.
My buddy was a service manager for a GM dealer as well as a prior owner of a pair of lemon Sierras and I spoke with him about this last night. It's a problem that has been ongoing for years and according to him should include every GMT-800 out there, not just the ones up until 2002.
But, like the spreading problem of stretching timing chains on GM's 3.6 litre V6's, the inclusion of later models will just be delayed until there are enough claims forcing Government Motors to do something about it. :sick:
I've been saying for a long time that Ford was unfairly penalized due to the bailouts. They would be MUCH stronger if they did not have two bailed out US automakers to compete against. One of the biggest advantages of capitalsim - creative destruction, or "culling the herd", was not allowed to occur.
Meanwhile "the sweeping overhaul and surprising recovery of the U.S. auto industry is about to pay off handsomely for blue-collar workers at Ford and General Motors."
GM, Ford ready to give workers profit-sharing checks (Detroit News)
Would those criticizing the maintenance of GM and C at public expense hopefully for a time have been complaining about allowing the cascading shutdowns and bankruptcies instead? I believe they would have.
Now GM and Ford are surviving. They are putting out good products still. Their workers are, in my opinion, overpaid for the long term high seniority union workers. But they are working and spending. Bring on a better economy under the political system and the auto companies, all of them, will be selling more cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Do you wanna bet how long it will be before the UAW is demanding givebacks of their concessions?
Personally I think there is some truth to this, but it is overblown. There would have been a painful adjustment period, and it would have been devastating for the recession (the main reason the bailouts were provided).
But if you assume that X vehicles are needed every year in the US and 0.3 X of company capacity (approximate market share of GM+C) goes away, then the market still wants that 0.3X of total vehicles, so they buy those from the other makes! And most of those vehicles are made in the US! So the headlights GM buys suddenly go away, but Ford and Honda and Toyota buy more! So after some adjustment, it is nearly a zero sum game, except that the companies who could continue to sell profitably what the customers wanted would have been rewarded.
But I'm sorry, IMO this theory is complete B.S... IMO, if a supplier has been surviving based solely on business from Government Motors and Chrysler (both known failing entities for decades) and they have no common sense to diversify and have accounts with the other automakers (whom have their own facilities in this very Country) then they have a very poor business plan and well frankly, good luck to them.
I hardly believe there are many (if any) companies out there with that narrow (and to put it bluntly) and that stupid of a business model with that much risk. :sick:
And as tlong iterated, customers would have plenty of other choices out there if there were no more GM or Chrysler. Even the racist "Buy Merican" crew out there, Ford is making a great comeback with some very good products that IMO when looked at model for model are better than GM/C overall. :shades:
By the way, the company is called General Motors, not "Government Motors."
But at that time everyone was tightening and not spending in preparation for the depression. Lending was not happening because banks were holding onto the money they had because they were over leveraged.
The suppliers don't have the kind of margins to lose a fraction of their business.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You have to figure in your equation that the auto SAAR has fallen by what -- 7 million new cars a year for the last few years now? (link - BNET).
Looks like we're finally going to get above 10 million this year up to 11.5 million. Your 0.3x simply went away, not shifted to Honda or Toyota.
Did I get a vote on it? NO.
Did you? If you did we know which way you would have voted.
Did anyone in here get to vote on it?
Get over it and watch your mtv.
Second of all, GM's bailout is pocket change compared to the bailout of the big banks.
Third, why aren't you guys bashing Chrysler as well or aren't you creative enough to make a mocking name of Chrysler?
Fourth, how can anybody who has the tag "anythingbutgm" be counted on as unbiased? That would be like me posting under the tag "toyotasucks."
Fifth, I am fully behind the bailout of GM and would've put my entire fortune toward the resurection of this great American manufacturer if I had the means, even if it meant I doomed myself to living my remaining years eating ramen noodles and swilling Old Milwaukee.
So did 19 Billion Dollars.
Calculate how many sales were lost as GM's market share went from 49% to 19%. That did not happen in a few years but took over 20 years. Guess where those sales went?
GM should have been put out of it's misery. Now, we wait and see if history repeats itself, like Chrysler. AFAIC, the bad taste lingers. There are good things happening at GM, I agree. However, you do not erase 20 years and a $19B loss based on 1 year out of bankruptcy. The competition is just too good to assume it's all Roses and Champagne all at once!
Regards,
OW
I also believe you're falling for a bunch of B.S. concerning the fact that all the auto suppliers would go-under and stay closed resulting in millions of lost jobs. That story was put forth by corporate lobbyists and union lobbyists to protect THEIR interests. Any politicians then quoted these "experts" and we know that many politicians are bought and paid for by these corporations and unions!
There is no reason that any auto-maker or supplier that fails, could not quickly be put through bankruptcy, and turned over to another owner within days. We all saw how possible this was didn't we? we have many examples during the last couple of years. The deals and financing were all accomodated by the Fed and Treasury - banks and Wall Street failures. There is no reason that GM couldn't be declared bankrupt today, and reopen on Mon. morning under new management and a new corporation. There is no reason suppliers could not have gone bankrupt, the Fed guaranteed financing for a new buyer at auction, and a company restarted.
There are plenty of people and corporations that can lay their hands on billions in cash if needed to buy any insolvent auto-maker or suppliers. Bill Gates himself could have written a check for GM back in 2008, and we would be driving MS vehicles today.
The suppliers don't have the kind of margins to lose a fraction of their business.
If they had such high fixed costs, and weren't smart enough to realize that economic shocks can happen every decade or 2, then their bad. They go out of business, and are replaced by smarter businessmen, who don't hire expensive workers who they can't easily layoff when the economy goes bust. Either that or they need to make enough profit during the good-years to ride-out the bad-years.
But then I knew a few engineers at Sylvania who provided lights to the auto manufacturers, and they said the auto manufacturers were their worst customers, demanding cost-cuts each year. They said Sylvania could not stay in business with customers like that.
So I believe the auto suppliers that relied heavily on auto-part sales were financially weak, but that was due to the GM's and Ford's being vampires for years to their suppliers. Not only did GM and the other companies weaken themselves but they weakened their whole industry in this country.
The Big 3 once had a substantial quality and product advantage over most of the world. Ask yourself why they didn't stay ahead? Why did they not advance the Impala, Regal, and other vehicles at the same rate as the Accord, Corolla, and such, to stay ahead? What did they do with all the money made during the 50's and 60's? reinvest or did they distribute the profits and personally benefit? It should have never gotten to the point where someone could say the Accord and Camry were as good or better than an Impala.
And one more thing - the corruption in our system amazes it. Everytime I hear that any company that has needed bailing-out, and still owes bailout money, is giving out out bonuses, it make my blood boil. I'd recommend bringing back chain-gangs for those crooks.
Secondly there ya go, change the subject.
Third sure we can make fun of Chrysler, whats the name of this topic, come on youre GM's #1 cheerleader.
Fourth, cant speak for that person.
Fifth......Is anyone surprised by that???? Seriously, anyone????????? Anyone?
I love it when you nail 'em to the wall like that!
Go GM, GO!
I'd buy a Corvette in a heartbeat!
Regards,
OW
I'm not the only one who brings up the bailout of the big banks - a much biggest expense to the taxpayer. I see that topic pop up on other forums a lot and by other Edmunds posters.
Who do you think you are to speak for me?
Of course I would sacrifice everything for GM. I'm old enough to remember when they made some truly spectacular vehicles. I've been fortunate enough to own many and have done very well with them. How would you like it if you favorite auto manufacturer was about to be obliterated? Would you want to buy anything from competing manufacturers whose products you despise? Picture it as being forced to eat nothing but the dish you hate the most for the rest of your life. You would do it because you had to and not because you liked it.
DETROIT — The United Auto Workers union is positioning itself as a car company partner rather than an adversary as it renews a campaign to sign up workers at U.S. plants owned by foreign-based car companies.
Yet Bob King, the union's president, says it will play tough with Toyota, Honda, BMW, Hyundai and others if they don't agree to secret ballot election principles that the union is backing. Companies that don't sign on to the principles will be branded in as human rights violators, King told an industry group last week.
At the Detroit auto show earlier this week, a top Honda executive said the decision on joining the UAW is up to the workers.
"They've never seen the need, so far, to have anybody intervene on their behalf, work in partner with them, and I think that continues to be their decision, not ours," said John Mendel, executive vice president of sales for American Honda, which has several factories in Central Ohio.
The UAW is pushing for additional members as membership has fallen from a high of 1.5 million in 1979 to around 350,000.
A Snake's Work is Never Done...
Regards,
OW
Why are you bringing up banks.....this is a GM topic. Trying to change the subject AGAIN?
Not trying to speak for you, but you certainly do seem like you are GM'S #1 cheerleader.
And there ya go again, GM shoulda been left to go broke. Of course, they probably had enough cash to figure out, "hey we screwed up, need to cut the fat and get profitable", but no.
"too big to fail" what a joke.
And not that there was any doubt, its official, you are Government Motors biggest cheerleader.
Its called survival of the fittest. GM lost so much ground over the years but did little to improve the product while customers didnt come back.
Almost every car comparo you would read about said the same thing......this (LT LTZ Z28 etc) shouldnt be top of the line, it barely compares with put-any-manufacturer-in-here's cars base model.
They had it coming.....and still havent learned thier lesson. But since Government Motors is too big to fail, you'll always have your new and improved Cimmaron. Enjoy it.
If I am GM's biggest cheerleader, I proudly wear the title.
If GM went broke, would you accept the certain economic fallout? A lot of people and businesses depend on GM for a living. Heck, even Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan didn't want GM and C to fail because it would drag their suppliers down with them? Would you have wanted an already terrible depression, (let's just call it what it is) to be much worse?
Could you have dealt with the certain degradation in quality of life, let alone the peril of a huge upsweep in violent street crime, even if you managed to survive financially intact? Would you want to fear marauding armies of the unemployed and desperate wreaking mahem upon your community? Would you want the tax base to be further diminished so there are fewer police and fire personnel to protect you? Do you really want to see what "survival of the fittest literally means at a personal level?
Too big to fail? Maybe, maybe not, but who is big enough and fast enough to fill the void left by GM and C? Can you wait that long? Will it ever happen?
Stay locked and loaded and keep your powder dry.
They would have salespeople on other carmakers front door ASAP. OK, would take a little time to retool for other carmakers products, but it would happen.
Extra orders for, you-name-its cars wouldnt keep suppliers going?
Lets say GM lost 100,000 sales. The manufacturer(s?) that pick up those sales will keep suppliers in business.
But that didnt happen.
Too big to fail, remember?
If GM went bankrupt it wouldnt be the end of the world, yours maybe, but theres a saying....."build a better mousetrap" and ya know what?
GM's mousetrap just doesnt cut it. Enjoy your new Cimmaron.
"Set the WABAC machine for Philadelphia 1988, Sherman!"
>"Could you have dealt with the certain degradation in quality of life, let alone the peril of a huge upsweep in violent street crime, even if you managed to survive financially intact? Would you want to fear marauding armies of the unemployed and desperate wreaking mahem upon your community? Would you want the tax base to be further diminished so there are fewer police and fire personnel to protect you? Do you really want to see what "survival of the fittest literally means at a personal level? "
People are being told the economic recover is starting, two full years late. But the news of the gas price riots in other countries is not making the MSM here. But the US people probably are too fat and lazy to protest much of anything.
Those that think the economy wouldn't have sunk further with bankruptcy fallout in suppliers as well as total lost jobs and the UAW unhappy over being cut out of any contracts with a defunct C/GM might have gotten some surprises just as described.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't know of many companies that can take a 30% or greater sudden hit to revenues and not have to do some quick restructuring, including big layoffs. The "0.3" theory being discussed in the blogs seems to consider the matter a linear math exercise, but I don't believe that is valid since it doesn't adequately consider the fixed cost aspect. If revenues drop by 30% (and probably more in the US focused vendor base) all costs don't just suddenly fall that quickly or proportionately. Idle facilities still can have fixed mortgages and at least semi fixed utilities. Operational costs can be reduced, but probably not by the same reduction percentage as the sudden revenue fallout. Plus, if GM suddenly folded, a lot of in process inventory and other related costs still have to be paid/covered by the stuck vendors. Some of these vendors would have survived, but probably as smaller employers, while others would have likely folded. In either event there would have been significant layoffs. Those laid off employees would have to cut expenses so their reduced spending would have likely hurt other businesses and industries. Also, laid off workers can lead to increasing loan defaults which can lead to reduced monies for lending. So the whole fiasco certainly had the potential for a cascading mess.
Remember, Ford was very cash constrained at the time so they couldn't just step in and buy suddenly idle GM capacity. The transplants tend to run their plants pretty efficiently toward high capacity utilization, so they couldn't just make up all the vehicle output lost by GM suddenly closing. It would also take a fair amount of time and cash to purchase and convert a GM facility to produce different company products (tooling and stampings alone can take awhile to acquire and set up), not to mention the incumbent delays in offloading any GM facilities while the BK court proceedings were in process (one of the reasons the gov was able to relatively quickly - but not "days" - settle the GM BK was because the approach didn't have the effects from, or number of involved parties that would have existed in a normal corporate BK). All of this means that much of any lost plant output would have to be replaced by further imports (and not at transplant facilities), at least for the first several years. Those sales would not involve near as many domestic US employees. Realistically, the supply and demand changed equilibrium would have probably also had a noticeable upward pressure on vehicle pricing.
I believe that generally capitalism works and eliminates the less efficient or relevant companies. However, I also think there are times when the government has to step in to avert a much greater harm to the country's overall economic and security interests. I think this was one of those events. We tried more pure capitalistic "let the market handle it" approaches under Herbert Hoover before being rewarded with the great depression in the 30's.
There is no reason that any auto-maker or supplier that fails, could not quickly be put through bankruptcy, and turned over to another owner within days
The problem with this belief in my opinion is several-fold; 1) Someone has to want the business, 2) the transplants don't want facilities in union friendly areas, 3) Ford didn't have the cash and may not have wanted the complication of integrating GM assets at a time when they were scrambling to perform a major restructuring of their own business survival and 4) the business is just not that attractive on an ROI basis compared to other investment opportunities. (and margins aren't generally that attractive in manufacturing these days which is a primary reason for all of the American off-shoring) Also remember that absorbing a new business has impacts to an acquiring firm's balance sheet and cash flows, and they aren't always positive initially.
As for Chrysler, now I think that was a primarily political move.
If Honda management is aware, they will be fair with wages, work environment and benefits. Looks like that's more of a reality than the latter.
BTW, '08 CR-V now has 40K miles and is perfect...you know where I was with the'03 GMC Denali.
Regards,
OW
Same with the price of food. Some brands you like until the contents are reduce by 50% and the price increases by 25%. You want to protest? No need. Don't buy that brand anymore.
Same with GM. 49% market share until customers "quietly" protested GM products by abandoning GM products unto oblivion.
Put another way, if Honda and Toyota products start a long run of customer dissatisfaction, they will experience a similar fate. Hyundai is on a roll not because of me but because some potential GM, Ford and Chrysler customers like what they see and buy the perceived better product.
Shooting others as we have just witnessed in Arizona does nothing for your cause.
Shooting a company in the wallet when their products do not meet your expectations is hitting the bulls eye. :shades:
Regards,
OW