They can write off the stock entirely and the taxpayers will still come out way ahead. A GM and Chrysler failure could have tipped the country into a depression.
....or after a few years of greater pain, we might have some newer car company with no UAW contracts picking up the pieces and challenging the Japanese and Germans at their own game.
We have NO WAY of knowing how much less (or more) successful things would have been if we hadn't propped up two failed companies. Just like our lovely immoral big banks. Aren't we glad those behemoths are still here? :surprise:
Moral hazard is the best way to get ahead in the USA. Go America, we stand for rewarding failures
Unfortunately, not really any different in Germany or Asia. In fact, the governments over there work actively with both the companies and the unions, and throw a lot of money at them as well.
When I came into office they were talking about the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, and a lot of folks said you can’t help them, and it’s a waste of the government’s money to try and help them,” Obama said Monday. “But what I said was, we can’t afford to lose up to a million jobs in this country, particularly in the Midwest.
Mr. President, “the government’s money” is income extracted from the American taxpayer. Worse, since the government is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar spent, “the government’s money” is a tax on future generations.
Next, Mr. President, “liquidation” is an overstatement, which conveys devastation ruin, and total collapse. Actually, GM faced a potential bankruptcy process, in which a court would order restructuring of debt and contracts, allowing GM and to continue making and selling cars.
Now Mr. President, what you concealed from the honest people of the Midwest and America. America had a long established legal system to adjudicate bankruptcies, which debtors and creators rely on to make rational and predictable decisions. However, you prevented this orderly process to reward the UAW unions. At the expense of the secure bond holders, you made the UAW a major owner of GM. Bluntly, you used Presidential power and taxpayer’s money to transfer ownership to the unions.
the federal government arbitrarily wiped out secured bond holders and bestowed stock to the United Auto Workers (UAW). Recently, General Motors had an initial public offering (IPO) of the GM stock. Gary Jason in the American Thinker reports on what the IPO revealed:
First is the news that the "new" GM walked away from the crony bankruptcy proceedings with a huge tax break -- one worth up to $45 billion.
Normally, a company coming out of bankruptcy is not allowed to offset past losses against future profits. The Obama Administration made an exception with the bailouts.
Thus, the new GM will save about $45.4 billion in taxes on future earnings, which may allow it to escape taxes for the next twenty years. This "tax-loss carry-forward" is a huge plum, an asset most of GM's rivals don't have, and one that no doubt led to its artificially high IPO stock price.
The UAW sold about 30% of their Obama-gifted stock in the IPO and received $3.4 billion. If they sell their remaining shares at $36 a share the UAW will have enough money to fully pay all of their promised pension and health care benefits. Bluntly, this has the stench of Chicago-gangster politics. GM was bankrupt. The UAW was destined to be destroyed. The Federal Government forced the American people to bailout GM, wiped out secured bond holders and gave stock to UAW. It pays to have political cronies in power.
Probably brands from China, and it would have been much worse, IMHO.
...or we might have seen pieces of GM broken up. The junk would have gone (which it should, anyway). The stuff that was truly valuable would have been bought by somebody. Totally new management. No union contracts. Changed names so that the stench of failure was eliminated. Cars like the CTS, but guided by better management. Perhaps bigger troubles for a couple of years, but then more competitiveness after that. This is not a 1-2 year game, it's a multi-decadal game. Do we think GM is now a world leader and highly competitive? Perhaps (at least overseas). But the US portion is barely becoming competitive. A decent but not fabulous result.
As long as the Buick division went to that awesome automotive start-up in Philadelphia called Lem-Co!
LOL!
It's interesting - YOU would have been passionate and no doubt would ensure the products were great.
Reading about Steve Jobs, one of his uniquenesses was that he LOVED Apple - his baby. Putting out great products was more important to him than money. Whereas most CEOs are more concerned about compensation than truly emotionally invested in the products of the company.
If I owned Buick, you'd be seeing the most awesome Buick automobiles since the 1960s. One project would be a revived Riviera worthy of the legendary name. Another would be the most awesome Regal since the storied Grand National. You'd have Buick automobiles even the most die-hard import fan would kill to own. Reliability? Remember, a burned-out bulb drives me bananas. Major mechanical maladies would not be tolerated.
A Regal GNX, sure, just make sure it has AWD else the front axle will rip apart from the rest of the car.
Doesn't the Opal Insignia already have 330+ HP available in Europe? I should think that would be the spiritual successor to the GNX.
Lemko, your devotion to the Buick brand is to be commended, and I hate to throw a wet blanket on your dreams, but if you were given Buick to run, how exactly would you fund all these new models?
We'd be paying out even more in unemployment compensation and welfare benefits than we are now if GM and Chrysler had gone away.
I don't think that was the only alternative.
Steve Motors could have bought Buick and done what they are doing now or better.
Edmunds Motors could have bought Caddillac and done what they are doing now or better.
Heck, I'd of offerred Cerebus $100 to buy Chrysler to create Andres Motors (absent all of their liabilities and debts).
The point is that bankruptcy doesn't necessarily mean their won't be others to pick up the pieces and start something better, bigger, and more profitable.
Do you seriously think autoworkers are so inept that 100% of them would still be on unemployment payrolls 3 years later? Surely they could have found another job by now, I hear McDonald's is hiring. :P
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
But why do people hold it against GM, but not Hyundai, or VW or all the others that have been gov subsized? And please, not the "because its not my tax money" line, since those foreign subsidies have put US firms at a disadvantage and cost jobs hurting the US. I don't have a problem with the GM BK because of the likely consequences to our economy and its current condition. I do however have a problem with how the gov handled the BK by screwing over bondholders and creditors, but giving the UAW special privileges. But then, the German and Korean governments treat their unions quite favorably as well - politics aren't just American!
People have a lot more sympathy to GM and Chrysler than the banks. Don't remember anyone occupying any proving grounds or dealer showrooms.
That may be, but the Execs at GM and Chrysler are still the enemy and part of the 1%, not the 99%.
I think history is starting to show that perhaps management was MORE to blame than the UAW workers on the assembly line, afterall, with some reasonable supervision the UAW workers wouldn't get away with what they were getting away with. The culture at Chrysler must have been something like this:
"Hey Joe (Joe is the manager of auto plant X (says John the UAW line worker), I think I'm getting only about 9 out of 10 of these bolts installed correctly." Joe responds " That's okay John, we have a margin of error of 10%." John says "you mean I only have to get it right 90% of the time and that's considered perfect?" Joe " That's right, we have a specified 10% lemon rate. So as long as you don't get any worse, we'll be all right!" John "Cool!, can I pick one of the one's I do right off the assembly line for myself?" Joe "Sure"
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Whereas most CEOs are more concerned about compensation than truly emotionally invested in the products of the company.
That's called having pride in one's work. It's a problem in this country, from the construction trades to which we can thank poor quaility buildings and houses for, to the obvious lack of pride the UAW and Big 3 had in their automobiles.
What happened to having some pride in one's work?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
But why do people hold it against GM, but not Hyundai, or VW or all the others that have been gov subsized?
I suppose as bad as VW reputation is for making unreliable cars, GM's must be even worse, for making a bunch of garbage and junk, so it offends the soul when a company like that goes under to be saved only by bailouts.
The Chrysler bail out sickens me, as I can't think of a more deserving company to go bankrupt than them.
My Dad's '87 Jetta GL reached 100,000 miles (sure it had it's issues, but it wasn't complete crap).
If I swear to Chrysler that I'll never spend another dime on them, and then in the future Bush and Obama come along and give them my money, that offends me greatly.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So if a chinese company had purchased Buick in 2008, do you think they'd of done much differently than they are doing now? They could have stayed the course just like they are doing now, just under CHINA GM rather than Detroit GM.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
It's a little hard to have pride in your work, regardless of how well you do it, when some avaricious criminal CEO will terminate you or outsource your job at the drop of a hat if it improves his already obscenely lavish lifestyle. There used to be a unwritten understanding between companies and its employees in this country in decades past that has all but vanished nowadays: Management will fairly compensate labor and labor will provide loyalty, pride, and good craftsmanship.
Today, management doesn't give a rip about labor if Chang is desperate enough to do the job for pennies and labor wants to get all it can from management while it still can before the plant is outsourced to China or some other filthy, abjectly poor third-world criminal kleptocracy.
But why do people hold it against GM, but not Hyundai, or VW or all the others that have been gov subsized?
Because, for me, on top of sub-standard quality and horrid business decisions, I experienced the lack of quality in one too many of their products. I never owned a Kia before so I have no axe to grind. Should have buried the GM name but kept the brands Chevrolet and Cadillac, imho.
My brother STILL drives the 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue I sold to him 18 years ago! I most definitely would buy another Chrysler. Make mine a red Chrysler 300-C!
I think history is starting to show that perhaps management was MORE to blame than the UAW workers on the assembly line
Ultimately I believe leadership is responsible for most messes. Personally, I think GM had several problems: 1) Leadership focused on finance and not product and quality, 2) UAW pattern bargaining resulting in ridiculous contracts and resulting cost structure disadvantages, 3) substandard engineering and design and 4) a near depression economy making it all quickly explode. Ironically, if the economy hadn't been so bad I'm not sure GM would have survived because politics would have been reluctant to go much beyond guaranteed loans (and that wouldn't have been enough by itself). I do believe in a sense they lucked out in timing. The economy would have had a big problem trying to absorb all of the economic shocks at that particular point in time because a lot of our economy is directly, or indirectly tied to the auto industry and its vendors, dealers, the multilpier effect and so on. That's why the Republicans actually had to step in first and both parties pursued it. My biggest issue with gov involvement in industry in this country is that all too often it's either reactive instead of proactive, or tied to politics, lobbying and payola. Industry and gov partnering can actually benefit a country if done well. Now as for today's GM, philosophically I feel what is done is done, and I'm willing to buy from them if the product, reliabilty and price are competitive. I guess in a sense that's economics.
I generally have very little brand loyalty. During the 24 years I've been driving, very rarely have I bought the same make back to back. I buy what I like, avoid what I don't.
GM in general, has made very little that I've liked over the past 30 years and I've driven dozens and owned a few. I've yet to sample one I'd want or buy again. That doesn't mean it won't happen. When GM builds something that meets my tastes, I will consider it.
I just don't like how most GM vehicles drive. OTOH, I've liked now every VW i've driven performed overall. So I could put up with more trouble with a VW.
There are a few Chrysler products I'd buy in a heart beat if I was in the market and a few I'd seriously consider. If I was buying a vehicle tomorrow, I'd likely buy a Chrysler before a GM product.
That's why the Republicans actually had to step in first and both parties pursued it.
If I remember correctly, the first bailout vote in Washington DC went correctly and the people got their wish, NO BAILOUTS. I think the honest people on both sides of the aisle voted against it. It failed to pass, and was shot down, as it should have been.
Somehow, amazingly, the 1% revolted and got to do a RE-DO/RECOUNT a few days later, and the 99% were sold out by their politicians. The polls showed that the public was STRONGLY against the bailouts, but the government sided with the rich wall street bankers and Detroit, and the bailouts were born.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
My brother STILL drives the 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue I sold to him 18 years ago! I most definitely would buy another Chrysler. Make mine a red Chrysler 300-C!
You just said if GM had gone under you'd of never bought a new car ever again! Your loyalty to Chrysler is weak stuff!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I don't disagree that money talks in America, but I think this one really was driven by economic fear. But since the public was upset, instead of honestly laying out the relevant concerns, the politicians all start CYA and reconstructing history causing the public to distrust. Republicans don't historically like these bailout things, but I think their fear of the tea party has limited their candor on why they really had to do it. As for the Dems, unions are part of their constituency so I expect they would have voted regardless of the economic issues. "Greater good" is a reasonable basis to make sometimes initially unpopular decisions, but congressional members need to honestly lay out the facts and not try to duck cover - it only further increases public distrust. Same goes for both of the presidents involved - leadership seemed to be lacking here.
politicians all start CYA and reconstructing history causing the public to distrust. Republicans don't historically like these bailout things, but I think their fear of the tea party has limited their candor on why they really had to do it.
You hit the nail on the head with fear. Bush came to the podium to instill fear in the American people if he did not "act" immediately. Fear is what got the rich what they wanted; a bailout.
They didn't "have to" do anything, Republicans and Democrats alike. They didn't have to react to their fear like they did.
I really don't think the sky was going to fall just because there weren't any bailouts.
I don't think a black hole was going to suck up the earth as the pro-bailout constituancy would have had you believe.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
But why do people hold it against GM, but not Hyundai, or VW or all the others that have been gov subsized?
OK, please point us at the details for these companies:
- Hyundai - VW - "all others"
Specifically,
Were they in bankruptcy with abject failure? Did they have CEOs proclaiming that things were ready to turn around as they descended into hell? Did they have 30+ years of mediocrity? Did they get hit with an upturn in gas prices and a downturn economic cycle with no contingency plans?
First of all, if all GM cars were as bad as some say you wouldn't see so many still on the road. Do I think they are best in class - seldom, but that certainly doesn't preclude it down the road. VW had a series of big product and financial problems in the 70's and 80's. The Rabbitt was a real problem, the Kambach before it. Sales and financial performance plummeted each time. Germany won't let VW go BK. The German gov is very tight with its large companies and unions. You seldom see a large German company go BK despite union issues - did you ever wonder why? The Daimler Chrysler experience certainly indicates management wizardry and efficiency aren't the reason. Hyundai is part of a huge Korean conglomerate. It did have to restructure in the mid 90's, but the gov was very involved with it to ensure it stayed in business and employees (unions) kept their jobs. If you think the UAW is a problem, read up on the Korean unions. GM may have had a lot of mediocrity, but early Hyundai's were pure crap. Hyundai did get their crap together quicker than GM though. I believe the French and Japanese governments were intimately involved in combining Renault and Nissan, both were hurting at the time. I'm pretty sure the French also kept Citroen and Puegot afloat for awhile. Early Toyota and Datsun (Nissan) had a lot of issues that their gov helped them stay in business and resolve. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with gov supporting key industries. I think America needs to take better care of its own because our competing countries certainly do it.
"But why do people hold it against GM, but not Hyundai, or VW or all the others that have been gov subsized?"
and I gave you an answer. You might not like it, but it does list unique differences with GM and C.
First of all, if all GM cars were as bad as some say you wouldn't see so many still on the road.
That's your assertion but I'd disagree. Nobody said GM's cars didn't run, or that some didn't get to high miles. They were just a lot worse than most of their competitors for way too long. For the world's largest auto maker, they were completely noncompetitive in many segments, especially smaller cars, both economy and premium.
VW had a series of big product and financial problems in the 70's and 80's...
[Hyundai] did have to restructure in the mid 90's, but the gov was very involved with it to ensure it stayed in business and employees (unions) kept their jobs...
Early Toyota and Datsun (Nissan) had a lot of issues that their gov helped them stay in business and resolve...
I believe the French and Japanese governments were intimately involved in combining Renault and Nissan, both were hurting at the time. I'm pretty sure the French also kept Citroen and Puegot afloat for awhile.
Well, once GM's big problems are 30 years from now (like VW's) you might not see people holding it against them so much, either. But was VW ready for total financial collapse, and ready to go completely bankrupt at that time? Did the government give them tens of $billions?
I recall that Hyundai was a joke of a company in the U.S. after that the early Excel. But in the past 10 years you've seen MASSIVE improvements in their products. More massive than GM's (to date) IMHO.
You can't buy Renault/Citroen/Puegot here, so those aren't on US citizens' radars.
Again, point us at the data that says Toyota/Nissan were *anywhere* near ready to collapse due to product failures and customers leaving them for competitors.
I don't have any problems with government supporting certain *industries*, just not miserably failed *companies*. There are better ways to spend money.
Hey, I know GM and C burned a lot of customers and used to have awful custmer support and dealerships. I was a victim several times. But look at more recent history. If you check out JDP or CU you'll see for example that VW really doesn't look much different from GM in reliability. I like the fit and finish and the handling of VW and its customer base is likely very different from say Chevy or Buick, but I just don't think GM is the company it was a decade ago. I was using the Toyota and Datsun from years ago example to show how some countries work more closely with their key industries than we do to help them become a success which then returns dividends to their economies. America is short sighted in this respect. As for the GM bailout, honestly it was a jobs preservation move in a very bad economic pickle, not some kind of investment decision. It wasn't popular, but an awful lot of different economists and the like from different backgrounds supported its necessity "at the time". Not opinion, just go back and read things like the WSJ from that time. The anwers weren't crystal clear to any one, but it was a very risky economic situation. Real world environment, not some business class case study and no textbook answer. Here's the thing, if Uncle hadn't bailed them out and the economy tanked into a depression every one would be complaining about that because we have become a nation of whiners frankly. Now you don't have to buy GM and I don't have to buy Hyundai, but we really short ourselves if we dwell in the past and don't find the best deal today for our tastes and pocketbook, whatever vehicle that may be. Personally, as I've said before, I tend to try and purchase vehicles that have significant domestic content and that often includes transplants. I also don't have any strong loyalties because stuff happens and changes over time, all the time.
IMHO one of the reasons that VW (until very recent models like the new Jetta) has had relatively strong loyalty for fairly poor reliability was that the cars were really nice in handling and interiors. People will tolerate some cr@p if there are other factors that are compelling. But GM (especially small cars) didn't have much of any compelling story for like, decades. GM isn't Mazda or Pugeot or some smaller company - they were the BIGGEST in the WORLD. Yet they were totally lacking in smaller cars. I tend to like premium smaller cars, and GM had NOTHING that would interest somebody in that sector. Except for durability and reliability, I'd argue that the Vega was the best GM small car until the Cruze came along.
So I think people treat GM more "tough" because they were very big and should have been able to do a lot better. People know that Chrysler was basically screwed over by MB, but GM had decades to try and get it right, and didn't. And so it took a huge gift from the US government for them to even survive.
Same here. The only thing that's kept them out of the running lately for me was fuel efficiency. If I was to get another new car, it would be something a bit smaller, Fusion/Altima/Accord sized. The 200 is, IMO, a huge improvement over the Sebring it replaced, but there are better cars in this class.
What I'd really like is a Charger, but fuel economy ruled it out initially. However, with this 8-speed automatic they're touting, with something like 19/31 EPA estimates, it has my curiosity aroused.
For comparison, my 2000 Park Ave is rated 16/25, and requires premium. And it's been getting a bit piggy lately. On Sunday, I went down to Busch Gardens in Williamsburg VA with two friends, and fuel economy on that tank was only around 22 mpg! Now, it had about 50 miles on that tank before the trip, and 280 more before I filled up, so it wasn't 100% highway. Oh, and frequent visits to 80-90 mph probably didn't help, either.
>that tank was only around 22 mpg! Now, it had about 50 miles on that tank before the trip, and 280 more before I filled up, so it wasn't 100% highway. Oh, and frequent visits to 80-90 mph probably didn't help, either.
What do you get on the DIC readout when you drive at 60 or 65 on open highway trips without the extra miles?
I don't think the EPA rates cars for 80 and 90 mph mpg.
Also, I believe the supercharged 3800 cars get a different "rear axle" ratio from the standard NA vehicles. Do you know the ratio that's in yours? You can tell from the RPO card that's in your trunk on top of the spare tire board under the carpet.
It's an "F" code, probably the second one with the first being the suspension stiffness. Mine's F79 for a 2.97 FWD final ratio.
What do you get on the DIC readout when you drive at 60 or 65 on open highway trips without the extra miles?
Dunno, because out on the highway, I usually don't go that slow! :P Although often I'll try to stay around 65-70, and then I've gotten it to read as high as 30-32, although when I do a pen-and-paper calculation, it usually doesn't come out that high.
FWIW, I had reset the average mpg before leaving for the trip. According to it, I averaged around 25 mpg going down. I reset it again before leaving the parking lot down there, and it recorded an average of around 25 coming back. Filled up in Fredericksburg VA, about 70 miles from home, reset the computer, and also tried to keep my speed a bit lower, more like 65-75, and when I got home the average was around 27.5.
There have been rare moments when I've broken 30 mpg on a highway run, such as when I go up to PA for my car shows. And, since I've had the car (it'll be two years in December), I've averaged around 21.5 mpg.
Comments
A little unusual, but I bet viewers of the show tend to be younger and will get it.
....or after a few years of greater pain, we might have some newer car company with no UAW contracts picking up the pieces and challenging the Japanese and Germans at their own game.
We have NO WAY of knowing how much less (or more) successful things would have been if we hadn't propped up two failed companies. Just like our lovely immoral big banks. Aren't we glad those behemoths are still here? :surprise:
Unfortunately, not really any different in Germany or Asia. In fact, the governments over there work actively with both the companies and the unions, and throw a lot of money at them as well.
Probably brands from China, and it would have been much worse, IMHO.
President Obama brags about saving GM:
When I came into office they were talking about the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, and a lot of folks said you can’t help them, and it’s a waste of the government’s money to try and help them,” Obama said Monday. “But what I said was, we can’t afford to lose up to a million jobs in this country, particularly in the Midwest.
Mr. President, “the government’s money” is income extracted from the American taxpayer. Worse, since the government is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar spent, “the government’s money” is a tax on future generations.
Next, Mr. President, “liquidation” is an overstatement, which conveys devastation ruin, and total collapse. Actually, GM faced a potential bankruptcy process, in which a court would order restructuring of debt and contracts, allowing GM and to continue making and selling cars.
Now Mr. President, what you concealed from the honest people of the Midwest and America. America had a long established legal system to adjudicate bankruptcies, which debtors and creators rely on to make rational and predictable decisions. However, you prevented this orderly process to reward the UAW unions. At the expense of the secure bond holders, you made the UAW a major owner of GM. Bluntly, you used Presidential power and taxpayer’s money to transfer ownership to the unions.
the federal government arbitrarily wiped out secured bond holders and bestowed stock to the United Auto Workers (UAW). Recently, General Motors had an initial public offering (IPO) of the GM stock. Gary Jason in the American Thinker reports on what the IPO revealed:
First is the news that the "new" GM walked away from the crony bankruptcy proceedings with a huge tax break -- one worth up to $45 billion.
Normally, a company coming out of bankruptcy is not allowed to offset past losses against future profits. The Obama Administration made an exception with the bailouts.
Thus, the new GM will save about $45.4 billion in taxes on future earnings, which may allow it to escape taxes for the next twenty years. This "tax-loss carry-forward" is a huge plum, an asset most of GM's rivals don't have, and one that no doubt led to its artificially high IPO stock price.
The UAW sold about 30% of their Obama-gifted stock in the IPO and received $3.4 billion. If they sell their remaining shares at $36 a share the UAW will have enough money to fully pay all of their promised pension and health care benefits. Bluntly, this has the stench of Chicago-gangster politics. GM was bankrupt. The UAW was destined to be destroyed. The Federal Government forced the American people to bailout GM, wiped out secured bond holders and gave stock to UAW. It pays to have political cronies in power.
There are 2 sides to every story.
Regards,
OW
...or we might have seen pieces of GM broken up. The junk would have gone (which it should, anyway). The stuff that was truly valuable would have been bought by somebody. Totally new management. No union contracts. Changed names so that the stench of failure was eliminated. Cars like the CTS, but guided by better management. Perhaps bigger troubles for a couple of years, but then more competitiveness after that. This is not a 1-2 year game, it's a multi-decadal game. Do we think GM is now a world leader and highly competitive? Perhaps (at least overseas). But the US portion is barely becoming competitive. A decent but not fabulous result.
Because the UAW supports OWS! Duh!
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
LOL!
It's interesting - YOU would have been passionate and no doubt would ensure the products were great.
Reading about Steve Jobs, one of his uniquenesses was that he LOVED Apple - his baby. Putting out great products was more important to him than money. Whereas most CEOs are more concerned about compensation than truly emotionally invested in the products of the company.
Guess who I'm dressed as for Halloween?
You and Rocky should be running GM, not the current clowns!
A Regal GNX, sure, just make sure it has AWD else the front axle will rip apart from the rest of the car.
Doesn't the Opal Insignia already have 330+ HP available in Europe? I should think that would be the spiritual successor to the GNX.
Lemko, your devotion to the Buick brand is to be commended, and I hate to throw a wet blanket on your dreams, but if you were given Buick to run, how exactly would you fund all these new models?
Regards,
OW
Guess who I'm dressed as for Halloween?
You're dressing up as a Chinese sweatshop slave laborer? I thought Nike had dibs on those costumes. :P
I don't think that was the only alternative.
Steve Motors could have bought Buick and done what they are doing now or better.
Edmunds Motors could have bought Caddillac and done what they are doing now or better.
Heck, I'd of offerred Cerebus $100 to buy Chrysler to create Andres Motors (absent all of their liabilities and debts).
The point is that bankruptcy doesn't necessarily mean their won't be others to pick up the pieces and start something better, bigger, and more profitable.
Do you seriously think autoworkers are so inept that 100% of them would still be on unemployment payrolls 3 years later? Surely they could have found another job by now, I hear McDonald's is hiring. :P
You really think so?
Did you just read that article? Buick sales are up a billion percent (roughly) and it's a brand that's not even focusing on the US.
Their goal is China.
That may be, but the Execs at GM and Chrysler are still the enemy and part of the 1%, not the 99%.
I think history is starting to show that perhaps management was MORE to blame than the UAW workers on the assembly line, afterall, with some reasonable supervision the UAW workers wouldn't get away with what they were getting away with. The culture at Chrysler must have been something like this:
"Hey Joe (Joe is the manager of auto plant X (says John the UAW line worker), I think I'm getting only about 9 out of 10 of these bolts installed correctly."
Joe responds " That's okay John, we have a margin of error of 10%."
John says "you mean I only have to get it right 90% of the time and that's considered perfect?"
Joe " That's right, we have a specified 10% lemon rate. So as long as you don't get any worse, we'll be all right!"
John "Cool!, can I pick one of the one's I do right off the assembly line for myself?"
Joe "Sure"
That's called having pride in one's work. It's a problem in this country, from the construction trades to which we can thank poor quaility buildings and houses for, to the obvious lack of pride the UAW and Big 3 had in their automobiles.
What happened to having some pride in one's work?
I suppose as bad as VW reputation is for making unreliable cars, GM's must be even worse, for making a bunch of garbage and junk, so it offends the soul when a company like that goes under to be saved only by bailouts.
The Chrysler bail out sickens me, as I can't think of a more deserving company to go bankrupt than them.
My Dad's '87 Jetta GL reached 100,000 miles (sure it had it's issues, but it wasn't complete crap).
If I swear to Chrysler that I'll never spend another dime on them, and then in the future Bush and Obama come along and give them my money, that offends me greatly.
Today, management doesn't give a rip about labor if Chang is desperate enough to do the job for pennies and labor wants to get all it can from management while it still can before the plant is outsourced to China or some other filthy, abjectly poor third-world criminal kleptocracy.
Because, for me, on top of sub-standard quality and horrid business decisions, I experienced the lack of quality in one too many of their products. I never owned a Kia before so I have no axe to grind. Should have buried the GM name but kept the brands Chevrolet and Cadillac, imho.
Regards,
OW
My '89 Plymouth Voyager reached ~100,000 miles (sure it had its issues, but it wasn't complete crap).
I'd buy another Chrysler.
Ultimately I believe leadership is responsible for most messes. Personally, I think GM had several problems: 1) Leadership focused on finance and not product and quality, 2) UAW pattern bargaining resulting in ridiculous contracts and resulting cost structure disadvantages, 3) substandard engineering and design and 4) a near depression economy making it all quickly explode. Ironically, if the economy hadn't been so bad I'm not sure GM would have survived because politics would have been reluctant to go much beyond guaranteed loans (and that wouldn't have been enough by itself). I do believe in a sense they lucked out in timing. The economy would have had a big problem trying to absorb all of the economic shocks at that particular point in time because a lot of our economy is directly, or indirectly tied to the auto industry and its vendors, dealers, the multilpier effect and so on. That's why the Republicans actually had to step in first and both parties pursued it. My biggest issue with gov involvement in industry in this country is that all too often it's either reactive instead of proactive, or tied to politics, lobbying and payola. Industry and gov partnering can actually benefit a country if done well. Now as for today's GM, philosophically I feel what is done is done, and I'm willing to buy from them if the product, reliabilty and price are competitive. I guess in a sense that's economics.
Unfortunately for them, you are in the MINORITY of former Chrysler owners with that statement.
Recently one of the Big 3 advertised 40% loyalty (oh yeah, Pontiac) as a good thing.
GM in general, has made very little that I've liked over the past 30 years and I've driven dozens and owned a few. I've yet to sample one I'd want or buy again. That doesn't mean it won't happen. When GM builds something that meets my tastes, I will consider it.
I just don't like how most GM vehicles drive. OTOH, I've liked now every VW i've driven performed overall. So I could put up with more trouble with a VW.
There are a few Chrysler products I'd buy in a heart beat if I was in the market and a few I'd seriously consider. If I was buying a vehicle tomorrow, I'd likely buy a Chrysler before a GM product.
If I remember correctly, the first bailout vote in Washington DC went correctly and the people got their wish, NO BAILOUTS. I think the honest people on both sides of the aisle voted against it. It failed to pass, and was shot down, as it should have been.
Somehow, amazingly, the 1% revolted and got to do a RE-DO/RECOUNT a few days later, and the 99% were sold out by their politicians. The polls showed that the public was STRONGLY against the bailouts, but the government sided with the rich wall street bankers and Detroit, and the bailouts were born.
I don't know if I'd get red, but for once we can agree on a car;)
You just said if GM had gone under you'd of never bought a new car ever again! Your loyalty to Chrysler is weak stuff!
You hit the nail on the head with fear. Bush came to the podium to instill fear in the American people if he did not "act" immediately. Fear is what got the rich what they wanted; a bailout.
They didn't "have to" do anything, Republicans and Democrats alike. They didn't have to react to their fear like they did.
I really don't think the sky was going to fall just because there weren't any bailouts.
I don't think a black hole was going to suck up the earth as the pro-bailout constituancy would have had you believe.
OK, please point us at the details for these companies:
- Hyundai
- VW
- "all others"
Specifically,
Were they in bankruptcy with abject failure?
Did they have CEOs proclaiming that things were ready to turn around as they descended into hell?
Did they have 30+ years of mediocrity?
Did they get hit with an upturn in gas prices and a downturn economic cycle with no contingency plans?
I'm sure the story is just the same, right? :P
My '89 Plymouth Voyager reached ~100,000 miles (sure it had its issues, but it wasn't complete crap).
My '85 Jetta GL reached 143K and it had virtually no issues.
"But why do people hold it against GM, but not Hyundai, or VW or all the others that have been gov subsized?"
and I gave you an answer. You might not like it, but it does list unique differences with GM and C.
First of all, if all GM cars were as bad as some say you wouldn't see so many still on the road.
That's your assertion but I'd disagree. Nobody said GM's cars didn't run, or that some didn't get to high miles. They were just a lot worse than most of their competitors for way too long. For the world's largest auto maker, they were completely noncompetitive in many segments, especially smaller cars, both economy and premium.
VW had a series of big product and financial problems in the 70's and 80's...
[Hyundai] did have to restructure in the mid 90's, but the gov was very involved with it to ensure it stayed in business and employees (unions) kept their jobs...
Early Toyota and Datsun (Nissan) had a lot of issues that their gov helped them stay in business and resolve...
I believe the French and Japanese governments were intimately involved in combining Renault and Nissan, both were hurting at the time. I'm pretty sure the French also kept Citroen and Puegot afloat for awhile.
Well, once GM's big problems are 30 years from now (like VW's) you might not see people holding it against them so much, either. But was VW ready for total financial collapse, and ready to go completely bankrupt at that time? Did the government give them tens of $billions?
I recall that Hyundai was a joke of a company in the U.S. after that the early Excel. But in the past 10 years you've seen MASSIVE improvements in their products. More massive than GM's (to date) IMHO.
You can't buy Renault/Citroen/Puegot here, so those aren't on US citizens' radars.
Again, point us at the data that says Toyota/Nissan were *anywhere* near ready to collapse due to product failures and customers leaving them for competitors.
I don't have any problems with government supporting certain *industries*, just not miserably failed *companies*. There are better ways to spend money.
IMHO one of the reasons that VW (until very recent models like the new Jetta) has had relatively strong loyalty for fairly poor reliability was that the cars were really nice in handling and interiors. People will tolerate some cr@p if there are other factors that are compelling. But GM (especially small cars) didn't have much of any compelling story for like, decades. GM isn't Mazda or Pugeot or some smaller company - they were the BIGGEST in the WORLD. Yet they were totally lacking in smaller cars. I tend to like premium smaller cars, and GM had NOTHING that would interest somebody in that sector. Except for durability and reliability, I'd argue that the Vega was the best GM small car until the Cruze came along.
So I think people treat GM more "tough" because they were very big and should have been able to do a lot better. People know that Chrysler was basically screwed over by MB, but GM had decades to try and get it right, and didn't. And so it took a huge gift from the US government for them to even survive.
Same here. The only thing that's kept them out of the running lately for me was fuel efficiency. If I was to get another new car, it would be something a bit smaller, Fusion/Altima/Accord sized. The 200 is, IMO, a huge improvement over the Sebring it replaced, but there are better cars in this class.
What I'd really like is a Charger, but fuel economy ruled it out initially. However, with this 8-speed automatic they're touting, with something like 19/31 EPA estimates, it has my curiosity aroused.
For comparison, my 2000 Park Ave is rated 16/25, and requires premium. And it's been getting a bit piggy lately. On Sunday, I went down to Busch Gardens in Williamsburg VA with two friends, and fuel economy on that tank was only around 22 mpg! Now, it had about 50 miles on that tank before the trip, and 280 more before I filled up, so it wasn't 100% highway. Oh, and frequent visits to 80-90 mph probably didn't help, either.
What do you get on the DIC readout when you drive at 60 or 65 on open highway trips without the extra miles?
I don't think the EPA rates cars for 80 and 90 mph mpg.
Also, I believe the supercharged 3800 cars get a different "rear axle" ratio from the standard NA vehicles. Do you know the ratio that's in yours?
You can tell from the RPO card that's in your trunk on top of the spare tire board under the carpet.
It's an "F" code, probably the second one with the first being the suspension stiffness. Mine's F79 for a 2.97 FWD final ratio.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Dunno, because out on the highway, I usually don't go that slow! :P Although often I'll try to stay around 65-70, and then I've gotten it to read as high as 30-32, although when I do a pen-and-paper calculation, it usually doesn't come out that high.
FWIW, I had reset the average mpg before leaving for the trip. According to it, I averaged around 25 mpg going down. I reset it again before leaving the parking lot down there, and it recorded an average of around 25 coming back. Filled up in Fredericksburg VA, about 70 miles from home, reset the computer, and also tried to keep my speed a bit lower, more like 65-75, and when I got home the average was around 27.5.
There have been rare moments when I've broken 30 mpg on a highway run, such as when I go up to PA for my car shows. And, since I've had the car (it'll be two years in December), I've averaged around 21.5 mpg.