Well Steve, do you think Chrysler is doing this because its needs Jeep to keep Chrysler afloat longer term, or because it is dressing it up to sell or spin off? Despite Fiat, I think GM is in better long term shape than the new Mopar Fiat community, particularly as the Tsunami and flood effects wear off.
Short trunks annoy me. A Lexus disease of the past few years. I do kind of like the XTS - the DTS had become too much of a fleet queen and the STS withered on the vine - a new 2004-ish car that could still be bought in 2011. They needed something, and the name still isn't up there enough to play with the 7ers and S-class (IMNSHO), so this is the tradeoff.
About the nav screen...several cars have had them for over a decade now, and I am not aware of any common failures. The only problem is that it eventually becomes obsolete, then an amusing relic.
Meanwhile, getting even closer to the topic, Forbes thinks GM is a buy (or at least one pundit there likes the company).
Of course I'm sure you do know that research has shown that over many years, almost no economists/stock pickers/pundits have performed better than monkeys throwing darts, correct?
In 2007 the consensus of economists was that the economy was slowing, would be slow for the first half of 2008, and then be rebounding by the end of 2008. :surprise:
I never really liked the DTS. The bottom of it made it look heavy; it had fat thighs.
I liked the STS better (maybe because there was an AWD model), but like you said, they let it age and never updated it.
I don't mind short trunks, they lend a muscular stance.
For me the XTS looks better than the DTS or STS, though. I can't imagine it being sporty, but a big comfy cruiser that would really eat up the miles on a long trip.
To be fair, DTS and STS weren't sporty either (other than the insanely rare STS-V), so this is a natural progression. As some said, evolution, not revolution. They will find buyers.
Short trunks can be an issue in that they often make the greenhouse look too big, or make it look like a hatch. See previous Lexus GS, which for me never looked quite right from the rear quarters, certainly not muscular or sporty either.
Short trunks can be an issue in that they often make the greenhouse look too big, or make it look like a hatch. See previous Lexus GS, which for me never looked quite right from the rear quarters, certainly not muscular or sporty either.
I don't think a short trunk is *too* bad, by itself (depends on how short, I guess) but a bigger factor is where the C-pillar falls, in relation to the rear axle. If the C-pillar is too far back, the car often ends up looking top-heavy and poorly proportioned. But if it falls too far ahead of the C-pillar, it can look awkward too, such as on something like a '69-73 Imperial coupe.
It gets the syndrome you have mentioned before, like in the 2000-04 or whatever Avalon, where the greenhouse just looks too big (also seen on 78ish Malibu sedan).
Those big Chrysler coupes are funny, trunk is as long as the hood.
I think the tiny formal rear window on that Imperial also makes the rear look even longer. From that angle, it fools the eye into thinking the rear window is even further away than it really is.
I love the '69-73 Imperial, but if I was going to buy one, I think I'd seek out a hardtop sedan. Much nicer proportioning, IMO.
GM is down 41% YTD. When do you estimate they will outperform???
The President took credit for creating or saving a million jobs, and indulged himself in a little touchdown shuffle:
With it's first day of trading, the once near-death automaker "took another big step toward becoming a success story," Obama said.
Obama said the revitalized GM proved that "doubters and naysayers" were wrong.
"We are finally beginning to see some of these tough decisions that we made in the midst of the crisis pay off," the president said.
You don’t hear the Administration bragging about the GM bailout these days. There’s a very good reason for that: it’s a gigantic money sink whose cost to the taxpayer nearly doubled overnight when the Administration quietly released its latest loss estimate earlier this week, as reported by the Detroit News:
The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion in the face of General Motors Co.'s steep stock decline.
In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion.
The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. It no longer includes $5 billion it set aside to guarantee payments to auto suppliers in 2009.
I think the main thing they could teach in our schools for History, isn't the memorization of dates and names. They should teach the reasoning behind the events that occurred. And one of the main lessons you'd learn and keep repeating to yourself thruout life is - Believe in what people DO, and not what they SAY. It keeps you from being dissappointed many times. Example after example is on our TV news of how each human is human with all the faults and weaknesses; I don't see many gods, quasi-gods, or just really good people leading us. You're more likely to find the best people leading quiet, humble lives. The people who are the most ambitious, liking the accumulation of power, $, and achievements are the ones most likely to be our leaders.
So when I look at GM and the entwinement with government I see powerful groups that are there looking out for their own interests. Their discussions and agreements are simply on how to divvy up the Booty. The GM bailouts weren't about American-pride, protecting Joe the Plumber, and all the other crap some government or auto-industry person told you. It was about the self-interest of those groups to channel $80B into their coffers, after those same groups had set their own policies which squandered the fortunes and goodwill they had created in the decades from the 30's - 70's.
There is currently no reason that New GM should be singled out, for special treatment - not having to pay income tax on its first $45B in profit. The reason for that is so the politicians can claim "success" in getting New GM higher net-profit, and so that with those higher net-profits GM can then justify returning their execs. to their old high pay and bonuses, and the UAW workers can get $4,000 bonuses per year.
So if you want to keep believing these various power-groups have your best interests at heart, believing these economic theories and scenarios they present to you after standing in front of the flag, or waving their PhD's at you go ahead and live in a fantasy. The facts are the housing market has been wrecked, about 25% of the people can't find a job, are discouraged, or are underemployed, the $ has been devalued severely, and the country continues to spend itself into debt at an unsustainable pace. So go ahead and believe what you're told - that GM, Chrysler, Solyndra, AIG, Fannie & Freddie, ... were all things done to make things better for the general U.S. public.
This country will not recover until we keep everyone in the rear; not giving our leaders much $, power, and idolatry, and when they screw up hold them accountable (ex. the people who gave $ to Solyndra should be in a Siberian-type prison). The system needs to be fair and non-intrusive, which most people don't see today. They see a government which is so screwed up, that it is better to be a criminal or collect somehow, then to work. Work is for suckers, right? For the most part, Ford was a sucker right? Ford needs to play The Game better - get better lobbyists and throw some more $, back to DC.
BTW - congrats to Ford on launching the 2013 Shelby Mustang, with the most powerful V-8 in a production car in the world.
Another good reason for all of us to minimize this thievery and hold onto our $, rather than sending it to DC. Everyone has human faults, and will take advantage of the system, if the system has the $ and is setup to do so. Poor to wealthy are guilty. The only way to beat this is to go back to allowing people to keep their $.
Right now it is legal for government on average to take 5 months of our income in taxes. Would it be okay if they pass laws that take 7 months or 10 months? it would be legal, if they say so. But wasn't the Serf-system during the Middle Ages legal because the King, the lords, and the barons were the law?
The benefits of the GM bailout won't be seen until long term.
The economy still hasn't bounced back. GM is so big that they need a strong economy in order to really do well. If car sales were back to 17 million per year in the USA, believe me, the Treasury dept would be arguing about how much profit they made.
Look at Korea - when was the last bailout they got? The stock values went up by a factor of TEN from 2009 to 2011. Korean government officials are probably tripping over themselves claiming credit for such a brilliant move.
GM needs time, and a strong overall economy. Then we'll see people arguing over who deserves credit, you guys will all say it was not Obama's plan, LOL.
lol, but Joe the Plumber didn't pay his taxes either. Ohio got a lien against him in 2008 (per wiki).
Not only that, he's not even a licensed plumber (from the same link):
One Toledo Blade article stated, "Mr. Wurzelbacher said he works under Al Newell’s license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain his own license to do plumbing work. He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he’s not a plumber."
We are the government and there's plenty of graft and corruption at the town and county level too. Hm, we could join Occupy Wall Street and go protest in front of big corp. GM has nice digs at the Renaissance Center; probably some good coffee shops nearby to hang out in while warming up between picketing shifts. Oops, I have 100 shares of Ford. Guess that makes me big corp too.
Meanwhile, GM says the crisis on Wall Street that led GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy is going to pale in comparison to the EU "contagion" that is threatening to occur.
Ford didn't pick our pockets because they didn't know how to structure themselves to survive a recession.
Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see GM getting competitive again, especially since they're a customer of mine. But if i ever see another auto company get bailed out like that I'm going to get my Tea Party hat and go Occupy Detroit. :shades:
Meanwhile, GM says the crisis on Wall Street that led GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy is going to pale in comparison to the EU "contagion" that is threatening to occur.
I love how they keep blaming Wall Street for their own mistakes.
Until GM and Chrysler admit what got them into bankruptcy, they are in denial, and that means they can never reach the NEXT step and truly recover.
I'm sure their bankruptcies had nothing to do with cars like the Cavalier, Neon, Vega, Aztec, and poor results in Consumer Reports.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The economy still hasn't bounced back. GM is so big that they need a strong economy in order to really do well. If car sales were back to 17 million per year in the USA, believe me, the Treasury dept would be arguing about how much profit they made.
I believe the ecomony would be better today had none of the bailouts been implemented. We'd have that strong economy already by now. Car sales may have very well been 17 million this year in the USA absent the GM/Chrysler bailouts. Of course, we will never truly know for sure, but what we do know, is the economy hasn't bounced back, which is what the bailouts were "SOLD" to do!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
And GM lost money. GM was heading to bankruptcy regardless. Take away GMAC profits and it's probably been a over a decade since GM actually made money selling cars and trucks prior to going bankrupt.
17 million unit rate of sales in 2006 and this how pathetic GM and Ford were.
Damn...if only I'd had the foresight to put everything on Ford when it was $2/sh, and cash in when it was $16. I think I'd be seriously considering retirement right about now. Where's the Wayback time machine when you need it?
Plus, Ford was riding high about 6 months ago or so. EcoBoost was the talk of the town, they were leading edge on tech.
Now we're hearing about transmission issues on the Focus/Fiesta, complaints about MyFord Touch, and some IMHO insufficient updates to the Lincoln lineup debuting at the LA Auto Show.
I hope they can bounce back on the quality issues and reboot Lincoln better than expected, else they may still need that bailout.
Ford's issues are no surprise. They bit off a lot, completely revamping the Ford line since 06 with several models being updated more than once. That's probably more change, than Chevy's had in a decade.
I've have driven and ecoboost f150, and I will say that's one impressive engine. Who knows if it is durable or not. Knowing Ford, it will have expensive issues at some point. But I hope not, I would really like to buy a EB f150.
I thought the question was if there was a large company that could survive a 24% drop in the market, without a bailout? Ford did, and that chart doesn't change that. Sure their stock is down now. Won't be forever. I notice they're still not asking for bailout money.
That reminds me, Ford supported the bailout money for GM and Chrysler. They knew that if those two went down, Ford would have lots of trouble getting parts from their suppliers and it would have a big negative impact on their ability to pay back their debt.
Comments
The political effect on Toledo is looking up though.
Chrysler Spending Half-Billion Dollars To Retool Jeep Plant (AutoObserver)
Meanwhile, getting even closer to the topic, Forbes thinks GM is a buy (or at least one pundit there likes the company).
Recent post about it over in The Progression of Chrysler discussion.
About the nav screen...several cars have had them for over a decade now, and I am not aware of any common failures. The only problem is that it eventually becomes obsolete, then an amusing relic.
Of course I'm sure you do know that research has shown that over many years, almost no economists/stock pickers/pundits have performed better than monkeys throwing darts, correct?
In 2007 the consensus of economists was that the economy was slowing, would be slow for the first half of 2008, and then be rebounding by the end of 2008. :surprise:
Probably smarter just to buy a Sonic at this point and enjoy gas saving "dividends".
I liked the STS better (maybe because there was an AWD model), but like you said, they let it age and never updated it.
I don't mind short trunks, they lend a muscular stance.
For me the XTS looks better than the DTS or STS, though. I can't imagine it being sporty, but a big comfy cruiser that would really eat up the miles on a long trip.
Short trunks can be an issue in that they often make the greenhouse look too big, or make it look like a hatch. See previous Lexus GS, which for me never looked quite right from the rear quarters, certainly not muscular or sporty either.
I don't think a short trunk is *too* bad, by itself (depends on how short, I guess) but a bigger factor is where the C-pillar falls, in relation to the rear axle. If the C-pillar is too far back, the car often ends up looking top-heavy and poorly proportioned. But if it falls too far ahead of the C-pillar, it can look awkward too, such as on something like a '69-73 Imperial coupe.
The best looking GS was the original, by Giugiaro.
I've never liked long trunks, not sure why. Maybe I just associate them with gas guzzling cars I saw in the 70s.
Here's one way to cool off.
Those big Chrysler coupes are funny, trunk is as long as the hood.
You mean you don't like a loong looooong trunk like this? :shades:
I love the '69-73 Imperial, but if I was going to buy one, I think I'd seek out a hardtop sedan. Much nicer proportioning, IMO.
The President took credit for creating or saving a million jobs, and indulged himself in a little touchdown shuffle:
With it's first day of trading, the once near-death automaker "took another big step toward becoming a success story," Obama said.
Obama said the revitalized GM proved that "doubters and naysayers" were wrong.
"We are finally beginning to see some of these tough decisions that we made in the midst of the crisis pay off," the president said.
You don’t hear the Administration bragging about the GM bailout these days. There’s a very good reason for that: it’s a gigantic money sink whose cost to the taxpayer nearly doubled overnight when the Administration quietly released its latest loss estimate earlier this week, as reported by the Detroit News:
The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion in the face of General Motors Co.'s steep stock decline.
In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion.
The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. It no longer includes $5 billion it set aside to guarantee payments to auto suppliers in 2009.
Regards,
OW
He might not have to be forced. He's that delusional!
Regards,
OW
So when I look at GM and the entwinement with government I see powerful groups that are there looking out for their own interests. Their discussions and agreements are simply on how to divvy up the Booty. The GM bailouts weren't about American-pride, protecting Joe the Plumber, and all the other crap some government or auto-industry person told you. It was about the self-interest of those groups to channel $80B into their coffers, after those same groups had set their own policies which squandered the fortunes and goodwill they had created in the decades from the 30's - 70's.
There is currently no reason that New GM should be singled out, for special treatment - not having to pay income tax on its first $45B in profit. The reason for that is so the politicians can claim "success" in getting New GM higher net-profit, and so that with those higher net-profits GM can then justify returning their execs. to their old high pay and bonuses, and the UAW workers can get $4,000 bonuses per year.
So if you want to keep believing these various power-groups have your best interests at heart, believing these economic theories and scenarios they present to you after standing in front of the flag, or waving their PhD's at you go ahead and live in a fantasy. The facts are the housing market has been wrecked, about 25% of the people can't find a job, are discouraged, or are underemployed, the $ has been devalued severely, and the country continues to spend itself into debt at an unsustainable pace. So go ahead and believe what you're told - that GM, Chrysler, Solyndra, AIG, Fannie & Freddie, ... were all things done to make things better for the general U.S. public.
This country will not recover until we keep everyone in the rear; not giving our leaders much $, power, and idolatry, and when they screw up hold them accountable (ex. the people who gave $ to Solyndra should be in a Siberian-type prison). The system needs to be fair and non-intrusive, which most people don't see today. They see a government which is so screwed up, that it is better to be a criminal or collect somehow, then to work. Work is for suckers, right? For the most part, Ford was a sucker right? Ford needs to play The Game better - get better lobbyists and throw some more $, back to DC.
BTW - congrats to Ford on launching the 2013 Shelby Mustang, with the most powerful V-8 in a production car in the world.
Right now it is legal for government on average to take 5 months of our income in taxes. Would it be okay if they pass laws that take 7 months or 10 months? it would be legal, if they say so. But wasn't the Serf-system during the Middle Ages legal because the King, the lords, and the barons were the law?
The economy still hasn't bounced back. GM is so big that they need a strong economy in order to really do well. If car sales were back to 17 million per year in the USA, believe me, the Treasury dept would be arguing about how much profit they made.
Look at Korea - when was the last bailout they got? The stock values went up by a factor of TEN from 2009 to 2011. Korean government officials are probably tripping over themselves claiming credit for such a brilliant move.
GM needs time, and a strong overall economy. Then we'll see people arguing over who deserves credit, you guys will all say it was not Obama's plan, LOL.
Not only that, he's not even a licensed plumber (from the same link):
One Toledo Blade article stated, "Mr. Wurzelbacher said he works under Al Newell’s license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain his own license to do plumbing work. He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he’s not a plumber."
Meanwhile, GM says the crisis on Wall Street that led GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy is going to pale in comparison to the EU "contagion" that is threatening to occur.
GM's Akerson to rethink Europe operations with debt crisis overseas (Detroit News)
(Juice, I didn't want to pile on. Nixon already gave plumbers a bad name.
Isn't that a structural problem within GM? You can't have a company that can only survive when the economy is good.
Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see GM getting competitive again, especially since they're a customer of mine. But if i ever see another auto company get bailed out like that I'm going to get my Tea Party hat and go Occupy Detroit. :shades:
I love how they keep blaming Wall Street for their own mistakes.
Until GM and Chrysler admit what got them into bankruptcy, they are in denial, and that means they can never reach the NEXT step and truly recover.
I'm sure their bankruptcies had nothing to do with cars like the Cavalier, Neon, Vega, Aztec, and poor results in Consumer Reports.
I believe the ecomony would be better today had none of the bailouts been implemented. We'd have that strong economy already by now. Car sales may have very well been 17 million this year in the USA absent the GM/Chrysler bailouts. Of course, we will never truly know for sure, but what we do know, is the economy hasn't bounced back, which is what the bailouts were "SOLD" to do!
Also, it wasn't bailout money by definition.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?symbol=F
For those who can't see the chart, imagine taking a dive, face first, in to an empty swimming pool.
That's Ford stock.
By 2008 the industry was at 13M.
Remember, in the auto industry, lead times are much longer than that.
That's pretty sudden in my book.
And GM lost money. GM was heading to bankruptcy regardless. Take away GMAC profits and it's probably been a over a decade since GM actually made money selling cars and trucks prior to going bankrupt.
17 million unit rate of sales in 2006 and this how pathetic GM and Ford were.
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/03/new-study-shows-u-s-automakers-losing-money-o- - - n-every-car/
And now they are MAKING money despite an industry down 20+ percent.
Are you arguing to support the bailout or what? LOL
Now we're hearing about transmission issues on the Focus/Fiesta, complaints about MyFord Touch, and some IMHO insufficient updates to the Lincoln lineup debuting at the LA Auto Show.
I hope they can bounce back on the quality issues and reboot Lincoln better than expected, else they may still need that bailout.
Duh, take away all of my liabilities and I'd easily get buy on a 50 percent pay cut;)
That's the whole reason for the reorganization. No other way for GM to be structured for profitability in this environment.
I've have driven and ecoboost f150, and I will say that's one impressive engine. Who knows if it is durable or not. Knowing Ford, it will have expensive issues at some point. But I hope not, I would really like to buy a EB f150.
GM, you have noticed that people DO buy hatches now? Where's the Cruze hatch, hmmmmmm???? :shades:
Ask, and you shall receive. Just figure out a way to smuggle it over from Europe, and enjoy! :P