And it took 2 mergers/buy-outs to last even that long.
Frankly, I find it shocking they lasted 29 years. It shows a few things:
1) Some Americans will buy anything. 2) Some Americans buy on low initial price alone without any other considerations. 3) Daimler was insane for associating with Chrysler. 4) Cerebus was INSANE for investing in Chrysler. 5) The US Gov't and FIAT are INSANE for investing in Chrysler.
I like the Italians though. My Maui Jim sunglasses are excellent and holding up well after a few years, as are my 18" OZ Racing wheels all coming from "made in Italy."
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Sorry, I'm a history buff. I think the gravity of what happened in WWII is greater than our bailing out Chrysler 30+ years ago. But trust me, I know I'm in the far-minority on that one.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Frankly, read anything about it and sacred M-B was not without fault in that merger. I've read that Chryslers were generally more reliable than Benzes in that early merger period! Sacrilege!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Bailouts are bailouts. Google it, you're a skilled high earner, right?
Got it. So as I understand it, all of the foreign makes have been helped by their governments, just like GM. And those claiming this expect other people to produce the actual evidence of that. Great argument.
But a broken playing field seems to be the key hallmark of "free trade" "free market" "capitalism" in 2012.
We can agree with that. And the US government is certainly way down the "broken" path compared to where it used to be.
I've read that Chryslers were generally more reliable than Benzes in that early merger period! Sacrilege!
Frankly, MB and Chrysler both had the same disease and pick up a CR mag from the time of the merger and you'll see it looks as if their management was competing for who could get the most solid black dots.
That is not the type of contest I want the auto manufacturer I'm buying from to be engaged in! Maybe UAW workers made side bets between different shops as to who could make the vehicle with the most black dots. Wouldn't surprise me in the least bit. Sort of how the referees got paid and bet on the Lakers beating the Kings one year in the playoffs not all that long ago.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
worldwide VW is close to GM in sales. they are 4th from the bottom in reliability after 2 years. GM is tops in sales. So I guess all cars have good enough reliability to generate sales to be on top of the world.
People want good qualities in their cars. Good qualities can be things like refinement, handling, fuel economy, reliability, style. VW may not be very reliable, but their cars have consistently ranked highly for handling, interiors (until the latest Jetta), and refinement. So their good qualities make up for their bad ones. Historically GM was good on price, but poor in many other areas. There always needs to be a value equation for people to buy something. It's not just about reliability.
Up to a certain point. You can deal with some unreliability, but I think the average person would react the same way I did to my Neon. VW must be doing a lot better than Chrysler in this regard.
Add up all the shop days with no car usage available, all the costs $$$$, and even if it had 1,000 HP and 1,100 lb/ft of torque, not many would put up with it. The zero to 60 time when it doesn't run is a lot longer than even a Prius (even with the help of a steep downhill grade!).
My familiy had an '87 Jetta GL, and although it wasn't very reliable, it didn't scare me away like the '95 Neon did. It is really apples and oranges comparing VW to Chrysler.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Whether some like it or not, the failure of GM would've knocked this country for an economic loop unlike it had ever seen.
No. Not at all. We survived Pearl Harbor and 911.
Airlines have gone through bankruptcies and their planes were still flying. We would have been better off with an orderly bankruptcy process from the onset rather than the meddling of our government and their illegal manipulations.
I won't beat this to death as we have many times previously here, but this always cracks me up. It's only about reliability on this board if it's a GM product.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
No disrespect intended, but the failure of GM can't be compared to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Employment went up after those two events. I don't know enough to speak numbers, but tons of government contractors were suddenly busier than ever, after both those events.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I won't beat this to death as we have many times previously here, but this always cracks me up. It's only about reliability on this board if it's a GM product.
I'll disagree. While GM had poor reliability with many of its models over the years, it is also about the fact that until the Cruze (as an example), GM didn't have a small car that was very competitive. They've also never had a smaller premium car (a la A4, BMW 3 series, MB C-class) that was ever competitive. Until recently they didn't have any midsized sedans (a la Accord, Camry) that were very competitive). Competitive not just in reliability, but in interior quality, handling, ergonomics.
I know that's the conventional wisdom, but I prefer my Cobalt over a coworker's '05 Civic (noisier on the highway and gooseneck trunk hinges that squash luggage) and '10 Matrix (noisier on the highway). I've spent hours in both. Without prompting, my pro-Ford, anti-GM other coworker volunteered how much quieter my car was than either of the other guy's cars. The in-dash satellite radio is wonderful on a trip across the Pennsylvania Turnpike, too.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
February, 2012 at the Motor Trend auto show in Greenville, SC.
Last time I drove one?
About 2 weeks prior... A friend's Buick. I was the DD for the evening, which I always am, since I no longer drink except on VERY special occasions.
The difference between you and me (or is it you and I) is that I can make a separation between the pre-bailout big-3 and the post-bailout big-3.
You at least don't seem to be able to effectively do that.
In today's market, I would put the design and build quality of a Cruze or Malibu against any comparable Japanes or Korean model. On the other hand...There's no way a Cobalt would have favorably compared to a corresponding Japanese model in 2005.
Reviews and surveys bear that out, regardless what personal experience you may or may not have had.
Nor does the work force (UAW) have the uncontrolled effect that the big-3 management allowed pre-bailout, either. More reasonable pay standards for the product being produced, better attention to detail and quality, etc... are in place now.
If I were shopping today for a new vehicle, I would give every make the same shot at getting my business. That's different than I would have done even 5 years ago.
It's not my philosophy to reward a manufacturer for sub-par performance, regardless how much of a "loyal and patriotic" feeling that might give some others. And again, it's not doing the manufacturer and favors, either... Just continuing to reinforce less efficient behavior.
That behavior may work well in an Amish Community under the Ordnung, but not in a competitive capitalist- based economy.
Airlines have gone through bankruptcies and their planes were still flying.
I don't think airlines are a good analogy. Or maybe that's too good of a comparision. Up here in the UP, it seems like most flights are subsidized by the feds. (link). And that's not counting all the tax funding going into ATC and the runway improvements.
Perhaps the US railroad industry would be a better example.
Lots of differences, but lots of similarities, too.
One thing they had in common... A deep hatred between management and the unions.... Some of it well justified, on both sides.
The most ridiculous issue I can remember?
The insistence of the railroad unions in keeping on firemen (which shoveled the coal into the coal fired locomotives) after the conversion to diesel electric locomotives.
The taxpayer is still on the hook for some of the union/worker obligations from the era of "big railway". I suspect we'll see something similar for decades to come in the auto industry.
The difference is, you apparently let magazines do the choosing for you.
And as I've said many times here, I'm a world-class cheapskate. I would not tolerate a car or manufacturer where I was spending big money on repairs.
And I haven't.
My Ford-buff coworker and I have actually spent considerable seat time in an '05 Civic and an '08 Cobalt. I mean, hundreds upon hundreds of miles. It's quite clear that you have not or you would have to come to the same conclusion about NVH. That's not just about perception; that's reality.
My Cobalt (base model) is absolutely silent and smooth at idle as well. I commented on this with my Civic/Matrix-owning coworker and he said, "Geez, you're right, can't tell it's running".
I for one do not believe there is a big curtain between pre-and post-bankruptcy GM. How could there be?
Incidentally, I just saw my daughter's friend's new Cruze LTZ. Although I wouldn't buy an LTZ, I was enamored with how substantial it looked (large credit to the wheels and tires).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Andres3, just so I understand your logic, would it have been preferable for Chrysler to file bankruptcy within four or five years of the last bailout, as opposed to 29 years? There were some groundbreaking Chrysler products in that period, and I'm not even a Chrysler guy. Uh...minivans anyone? The LH sedans?
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'm not a general history buff; I'm a WWII history buff. I was reading everything about the sea battles of WWII and the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" since about 10. I generally quote the repair of the Yorktown prior to Midway, when people quote that it takes a year or more to do some relatively simple change/project.
But if you understand history, you understand that yesterday's enemy is today's allie, and vice versa. I can't think of many countries that the U.S. has not had as an adversary or potential adversary. If you've noticed my prior comments I would be fine if the U.S. interacted much less internationally, and even stopped trade with many countries if they didn't provide equal work and trading conditions. But our politicians are namby-pamby - just a few weeks ago we're offering the N. Koreans food! I'd offer them an ultimatum, and tell China and Russia, don't be surprised if they see some blips on their satellite and radars. Iran too would have a countdown going on - peaceful or not, I'd tell Iran their sites are going to get a "Peacekeeper" missile in them, if not dismantled.
Do I hate Japan because we were at war with them 65 years ago - NO. Do I hate Britain because we were at war with them 230 years ago - No. Would I consider retiring to Vietnam - yes. I don't hate races of people; though I may hate some of the leaders at times from those countries. Get rid of the leaders of Iran, and I'd be friends with Iranians and travel there.
But back to GM. I've bought 4 new GM products in the last 20 years. They were good for the price and relatively trouble free. I guess I was hoping to keep GM going. What did they do with my $ and goodwill? They spent it all and more. Arrogance and excessiveness by all in GM. Unwillingness or inability to change. There's not much to like about the actions of the New GM, and I'll state that over and over. The 2 most recent examples are slaps in the face to the U.S. taxpayer - making contracts to hand-out bonuses, and investing in Peugeot. Every penny that GM has for stuff like that, should be going right back to the U.S. Treasury. The New GM should not be hiring lobbyists or making any political contributions either! :mad:
I clearly stated how I choose new vehicles, yet you continue to use a single example (your Cobalt) as the most significant statistical analysis.
Clearly, if everyone had the experiences of my 1st year S-10 Blazer, there wouldn't have been a multi year run. Just like Olympic scoring, the low and high scores get thrown out.... Or at least, they should get thrown out.
Coming to a conclusion as you continuously do using your Cobalt shows clear bias. Just curious, if the car had multiple serious problems, would you be so quick to use it as your basis of reference?
About 15 years ago, there was an incident at a local restaurant that caused multiple serious illnesses. Some were life threatening. Seems they made their own mayo, and it wasn't pasteurized. It became contaminated, which caused the illnesses.
Even so, only about 1/4 of the diners were affected, and the others suffered no illnesses at all.
I'm betting that the folks that got sick have a totally different viewpoint of the incident than those that didn't, but in the end, it DID happen... And, it was significant.
A reasonable person would never discount such an incident, simply because they didn't happen to get sick. Yet, you continuously discount the poor quality the big-3 churned out until recently, based solely on your experience.
That's a bit humorous to many here.
If you don't see much of a difference between pre and post GM bankruptcy, you really should see an optometrist about that tunnel vision you apparently suffer from.
I like to think I can generally find common ground with most folks, but in this case, as it relates to automobiles, I don't see it happening. I don't think your a bad person, but you definitely have a fixed opinion that isn't subject to revision.
Enjoy your own little "reality" as long as it works for you.
Talk about selective reality--it's all over this board.
And not forgetting the atrocities that happened only 13 years before my birth, does not make one a racist. One needs to remember. Doesn't make me a 'hater'. I'd rather support the U.S. than other countries. But on top of that, I like the products better.
To you, that makes me less enlightened than you. Oh well. I've said it for decades...those who think they are the most open-minded are often the most narrow-minded.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
They both have a lot of capital assets and run a lot of red ink, but I agree that the similarities pretty much end there. Airlines are a service sector. They generate cash flow much easier than automotive for a couple of reasons. They get lots of cash from sales before the actual service is delivered and from other things like selling frequent flyer miles to the bank credit card companies. They also often lease rather than own many of their aircraft and facilities. This allows them to amortize lease payments while generally laying out less cash each month than if they owned them. Finally, they can quickly ground aircraft and layoff crew during slow periods in their industry which reduces variable costs including fuel.
One more try: the GM bailout, like the banks went way beyond just GM. Far more would have been lost through vendors (many of who are NOT unionized) and the resulting flow down into the general economy. Yes, the US would have survived if GM tanked, but the recession we experienced would have been far worse. If you follow the industry you know there is no love lost between GM and Ford, yet Ford didn't need a bailout but strongly supported the GM bailout. Why? Common vendors and limited supply base. As they started collapsing I guarantee you Ford would have then also been in BK (rememebr they avoided BK by massive leverage so they had little extra in the bank and little chance of more loans). Even the transplants were concerned about this. Loss of vendors would have not just resulted in layoffs there, but also from the other automakers because parts shortages would have significantly slowed their output (and hence, cash flow). I really doubt George W would have done a GM bailout if the impact was just loss of GM. And you can't just replace lost vendors with no impact because there is start up costs and lead times to bring on new suppliers. Transplants and imports would not have easily fixed it either because transplants have limited capacity and common suppliers, and imports would not offset or solve the result of massive layoffs and vendor failures. Like it or not, the auto sector is a large piece of our economy like real estate. I wish the media would have brought in some business professors instead of listening to political spin from Rush and Fox News propaganda. Now as for the UAW, they did get treated better than airline employees do in BK at the expense of the bondholders and creditors. But the UAW making out doesn't really correlate to impacts and consequences of GM quickly going out of business during a very deep recession.
Hey, if you like domestic products better, then that's what you should buy. I've never suggested anyone buy any product they don't like.
Until my wife's dad died in 2000 at age 91, he refused anything Japanese, so I understand why some dislike their products... But, I must admit that, unless you were in action then or lost an immediate family member due to action in WWII, it's not very "enlightened", as you might say, to have such a grudge.
WWII wasn't my war, and extremely few participants on any side are still alive, and none (for all practical purposes) have had anything to do with manufactured products for years.
Yet, there are those here in SC that insist on taking change in $1 bills rather than take a $5 bill with Lincoln's picture on it.
Just seems absurd to me... I dont place the sins of the father on the shoulders of the son.
And I certainly don't think either of us is more or less enlightened than the other. Yes, we have differing opinions, but I see that as a good thing. Remember, this is a forum for opinions... There are few forums with hired fact checkers.
Who knows? Maybe in the overall picture, we would agree more than disagree.
One of those areas in in the current big-3 product offering. As I said before, I think some folks involved in running them now have actually seen the light, because there's no question that their products have improved... For a number of reasons.
Ultimately, I don't care where GM has been. It's far more important to me, at least, to see where the big-3 are going...
And, as I have said before, I like the idea of the Volt. I hope GM sticks with improving it instead of giving up in a couple of years. You know, there were still lots of horses for years after Henry Ford started making cars...I don't see it as very surprising that it wasn't an instant hit.
Maybe it would have made a bigger splash if it was named the "iVolt" instead...
With some of the looting that went on, I think the Daimler-Chrysler thing was just revenge for 1945 - same things the Germans have been doing to us with VW service departments and some other cars :shades:
The Italian Chrysler marriage might be some kind of revenge too.
Yes, that's right. All other nations aid their industry, and some GM competitors - the Koreans especially - have received bailouts, along with massive amounts of other coddling. And that's not even touching on the benefits that nation and others receive from our megalomania. Don't talk about evidence, remember unnamed tax havens? :shades:
We can either compete with the same welfare, or level the playing field with punitive actions. Those are the only solutions.
Don't talk about evidence, remember unnamed tax havens?
Well, using your logic, I could say you're a smart cube rat in a telecom company; I'm sure you can figure it out. :P And I did give a list of locations which included the one of which we speak.
It's groups like the UAW which have hastened the exodus of such jobs, while they suck down the survival of their hosts. Ahh, living the "working man's wage" for a bit longer....
We can either compete with the same welfare, or level the playing field with punitive actions. Those are the only solutions.
Remembering it's the product that makes the day.
However healthy the American auto industry is today, the idea of government bailouts and continued ownership of private companies remain anathema to a large swath of the American public, an audience the Republican candidates are surely aware of. Last month a Gallup poll asked, "Do you approve of the auto bailout?" A majority, 51 percent, said no; 44 percent said yes. Among Republicans, 73 percent said they disapproved of it.
And consider this:
Shafting Ford and taxpayers as GM receives the gift of an $18 BILLION tax credit. Obama announced the biggest profit for GM in its 100-year-history? Dealer inventories loaded with an 89 day inventory (channel stuffing). “GM back to old tricks.”
Wall Street Journal: Corporations in the red, as GM was for years, are allowed to carry forward net operating losses that reduce their future tax liability when they are making money. GM had accumulated about $45 billion in such profit-shielding chits by 2008, with a book value of about $18 billion. When companies enter bankruptcy, carry-forwards disappear or are greatly limited under IRS section 382, which kicks in when ownership changes by more than 50 percentage points
So when GM entered bankruptcy in June 2009, the government swapped the debt the auto maker owed it as a creditor for 61% of “new GM,” while handing another chunk to the United Auto Workers. But new GM also inherited the accumulated net operating losses that would have turned into a pumpkin in normal bankruptcy.
In a 2011 working paper, J. Mark Ramseyer of Harvard and Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University argue that by manipulating corporate tax rules by fiat, “Treasury gave the firm (and its owners, including the UAW) $18 billion more in assets.” Thus a Democratic Administration gave “a massive tax benefit to one of the party’s biggest supporters.” The other problem is that the move put Ford and GM’s other competitors at a disadvantage, as bailouts always do.
With Obama boasting of GM’s highest profits in it’s 100-year-history, whatever the truth, we remind him that GM still owes taxpayers at least $25 BILLION, and there that’s hidden $18 BILLION that even the Wall Street Journal missed for awhile. We haven’t forgotten shareholders who lost everything – their share price, their retirement, their health insurance, maybe their homes, surely their peace of mind.
Failure takes a long time to clean up and the inertia tends to repeat the same as we know regarding Chrsler. Some companies are built to fail! :surprise:
My coworker's Civic still has a hood prop rod too. That surprised me, in that price range for a car that size. Just remembered that. Small thing, but I like a hood that holds itself open for checking oil and washer fluid levels.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Fleet sales will represent 19.5% of the market in March. The Small 3 represent the bulk of those.
In a speech to the Automotive Press Association, Ford defended its fleet business, which made up 31% of U.S. vehicle sales through the first two months of 2012, Bloomberg News reports. That's down from 33% a year ago, but it still ties Chrysler for highest fleet share. GM sells 27% to fleet, followed by Nissan (24%) and Toyota (17%), according to Automotive News. Hyundai-Kia and Honda are in the single digits. Fleet sales, especially those to daily rental fleets, are less profitable and can stymie resale values on a given model. But Kevin Koswick, director of Ford's North American fleet, lease and remarketing operations, told the APA that the fleet business was worth $57 billion last year — "a very productive and profitable business" for Ford.
So what has changed from pre-bankruptcy? JIT inventory? No. Lower fleet sales thus hurting profits and lowering resale values? No.
Looks like buy high and sell low will continue for most GM customers!
I was surprised to see that Ford surpasses GM in fleet sales. By all the comments on forums, one wouldn't think that.
My personal experience is that GM cars cost less than other cars upfront, and that's where I'd rather save my money, since I don't trade in every three or four years like I did when I was a bachelor. Having a GM card helps in that respect, of course.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
hood props have made their way into more expensive categories than the Honda Civic. The 2006-2010 Charger, a car that could be optioned up to $40K and more, even had a hood prop! I don't know if the 2011+ models have them though.
My buddy's 2006 Xterra, which stickered for around $26,000 when new, also has a hood prop.
As for gooseneck hinges, I remember they didn't used to be so bad in the old days, because when you closed the trunk they went into an area that was boxed in, so they wouldn't crush your luggage. But nowadays, to make trunks open wider, I think the hinges have to take up more space to have a wider range of travel, so if they boxed off the area where the gooseneck rests when the trunk is fully closed, it would take up more trunk space. Still, that's basically a useless area of the trunk anyway, so they might as well.
OW, very nice dissertation but tell me again what's wrong with fleet sales?
Absolutely nothing. As you well know marketing costs are a significant, if not the largest operating cost, of a manufacturer. So it is a trade-off. Lower marketing costs to fleet sales in return for a slightly lower contribution margin. It is a zero sum game.
As to the GM and Chrysler bailout it was not as much a financial bailout as it was a psychological bailout. No American had the stomach to watch the complete collapse of the American automobile industry. Most tend to focus on Chrysler and GM but the suppliers would have been the ones most affected.
And the NOL (Net Operating Loss) carryforward. That is precisely its function and what Congress intended in the first place—that is, it encourages entrepreneurs to take risks. In lean or unprofitable years such losses are used to offset profits in future years.
I'll make somebody grumpy again by mentioning my Cobalt, but it has little 'shock absorber'-looking thingies that are outside of the trunk opening. I like that. A small thing, but another small thing it has that's a good thing in its price class. The hood holds itself open.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I have four gas shocks that open my trunk and are completely out of the way hidden in the lip of the trunk opening, I can, and have stuffed my trunk before for long trips.
My personal experience is that GM cars cost less than other cars upfront, and that's where I'd rather save my money, since I don't trade in every three or four years like I did when I was a bachelor. Having a GM card helps in that respect, of course.
So you buy mostly cars that are widely sold to fleets. That works.
But it contradicts what you said about GM cars costing more.
I can only comment on my one experience, but in twelve straight weeks of rental cars last spring, I had one GM product..a Malibu. The rest were Fords or Kias or Toyotas. This was Minneapolis.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
OW, very nice dissertation but Tell again what's wrong with fleet sales?
Fleet sales, especially those to daily rental fleets, are less profitable and can stymie resale values on a given model.
IOW, deterioration of residual values, mostly on the higher sales volume models, which drive profits lower. As cost pressure mounts (and dependence on large trucks continues), you know the drill.
And the NOL (Net Operating Loss) carryforward. That is precisely its function and what Congress intended in the first place—that is, it encourages entrepreneurs to take risks. In lean or unprofitable years such losses are used to offset profits in future years.
Welcome to Government-Owned USA.
“It’s an arcane and hard-to-follow way of disguising billion of dollars paid to firms that, for whatever reason, are politically favored,” says J. Mark Ramseyer, a Harvard law professor who wrote a paper on a similar tax treatment given to General Motors when it was taken over. “It’s one thing to announce through TARP that you’re going to give a firm a billion dollars. But if you issue a letter saying that the company can use a net operating loss that they would otherwise lose, that’s harder for people to follow,” he says, referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Program enacted in 2008 by the U.S. government to buy assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen them. Besides AIG and GM, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac got tax breaks as part of their bailouts.
“It’s unprecedented,” says New York–based corporate tax consultant and regular CFO columnist Robert Willens. “It’s a deal where the party that benefits from the waiver of the rule is the one that’s waiving it. In the private sector, that could never happen.”
Just about every police car is a Ford. Wonder what they're going to do now without the venerable Crown Victoria? Is there a Taurus police cruiser? If so, I have yet to see one. Maybe Chrysler will return to the top of the police car pyramid with the Charger?
Fleet sales, especially those to daily rental fleets, are less profitable and can stymie resale values on a given model.
It's not just fleet sales that's the problem, but fleet dumping. After all, rental agencies, taxi cab companies, police departments, company motor pools, etc, all need cars too. However, when you over-produce, and then start dumping these cars into fleets at cheap prices to get rid of them, it increases turnover and floods the market.
I remember back around 1996, our gov't agency bought five Olds Achievas for a grand total of $65,000. Or, $13,000 per car. By that time, the Achieva was a car nobody really wanted anymore, and it was surviving mainly on fleet sales. I think they've finally been used up and auctioned off. Now we've got mainly Impalas, although I've seen a couple of Fusions in the fleet...even a hybrid or two! So, our tastes are improving, at least.
FWIW, the first rental car I ever had was a 1991 Civic sedan, so even the almighty Honda makes it into the rental fleets on occasion.
With me, it isn't even a matter of money. My first priority is styling and GM cars have always been lookers. I don't care how good a car may be if it is super-bland or super ugly. The Asian makes wouldn't know good styling if it walked up to them and hit them in the face with a lead pipe. Too many Asian makes look like the creations of anime artists, monster designers from Toho studios, or were inspired by a half-used bar of Safeguard soap.
Don't get me wrong, I care about reliability too, else several European makes would make it to my car-shopping A-list too. Trouble is, repair and maintenance costs for Euro makes would eat me alive. Domestic makes, especially Buick and Cadillac, have the right mix of styling and reliability to meet my standards head-on!
>bigger splash if it was named the "iVolt" instead...
LOL
You'll appreciate the next Apple iProduct.
Apple Prepares to Release iThink
"Apple CEO Tim Cook is expected to announce a product aimed at improving the intelligence of Americans. It's called the iThink and it's about the size of a first-generation iPod but, instead of headphones, the device's wires terminate in sticky pads that are designed to be placed on the user's head. The technology is so revolutionary that it will be limited to distribution in the United States."
One more try: the GM bailout, like the banks went way beyond just GM. Far more would have been lost through vendors (many of who are NOT unionized) and the resulting flow down into the general economy. Yes, the US would have survived if GM tanked, but the recession we experienced would have been far worse.
I don't think you're considering the option that I've stated. That GM stopped existing at midnight 1 day, with the books being closed then. At 12:01 the government could have a) either taken over, or b) sold or given the assets to someone like Ford; and then the factories open the next day just like they would have if it were GM. Then there would have been a meeting the next morning with the employees, saying this is now corporation HN. You will now be offered a job with HN, if you want to continue, there is no GM and no severance package.
We did have an Auto Czar and we saw with Wall Street examples that apparently the federal government can do this.
So 1 more time - the closure of GM, the closure of the factories, the layoff of the employees, and a normal bankruptcy, were NOT the only options and/or consequences.
The story of why GM needed to be bailed out was nothing more than political cover. It was a story created to sound so awful, that the politicians would not get much heat for having done so. It's all about protecting the wealthy and powerful, and politicians getting reelected.
Bah, a hood prop-rod means two fewer heavy parts to break. Although in the last 20 years I've only had to replace ~4 gas hatch props, one of the ones on my '97 Outback seems to be getting weak.
If a rod breaks, I can find a broomstick.
Simple and elegant doesn't mean cheap or poorly engineered. If you insist, we could chrome a prop-rod for you.
Comments
Weren't you the one saying that looking back 30+ years was ridiculous?
GM got plenty of war business, too. A red herring.
They didn't because their business models were failing so badly that they didn't have the money or the product demand for new plants.
And it took 2 mergers/buy-outs to last even that long.
Frankly, I find it shocking they lasted 29 years. It shows a few things:
1) Some Americans will buy anything.
2) Some Americans buy on low initial price alone without any other considerations.
3) Daimler was insane for associating with Chrysler.
4) Cerebus was INSANE for investing in Chrysler.
5) The US Gov't and FIAT are INSANE for investing in Chrysler.
I like the Italians though. My Maui Jim sunglasses are excellent and holding up well after a few years, as are my 18" OZ Racing wheels all coming from "made in Italy."
Got it. So as I understand it, all of the foreign makes have been helped by their governments, just like GM. And those claiming this expect other people to produce the actual evidence of that. Great argument.
But a broken playing field seems to be the key hallmark of "free trade" "free market" "capitalism" in 2012.
We can agree with that. And the US government is certainly way down the "broken" path compared to where it used to be.
Frankly, MB and Chrysler both had the same disease and pick up a CR mag from the time of the merger and you'll see it looks as if their management was competing for who could get the most solid black dots.
That is not the type of contest I want the auto manufacturer I'm buying from to be engaged in! Maybe UAW workers made side bets between different shops as to who could make the vehicle with the most black dots. Wouldn't surprise me in the least bit. Sort of how the referees got paid and bet on the Lakers beating the Kings one year in the playoffs not all that long ago.
GM is tops in sales. So I guess all cars have good enough reliability to generate sales to be on top of the world.
People want good qualities in their cars. Good qualities can be things like refinement, handling, fuel economy, reliability, style. VW may not be very reliable, but their cars have consistently ranked highly for handling, interiors (until the latest Jetta), and refinement. So their good qualities make up for their bad ones. Historically GM was good on price, but poor in many other areas. There always needs to be a value equation for people to buy something. It's not just about reliability.
Up to a certain point. You can deal with some unreliability, but I think the average person would react the same way I did to my Neon. VW must be doing a lot better than Chrysler in this regard.
Add up all the shop days with no car usage available, all the costs $$$$, and even if it had 1,000 HP and 1,100 lb/ft of torque, not many would put up with it. The zero to 60 time when it doesn't run is a lot longer than even a Prius (even with the help of a steep downhill grade!).
My familiy had an '87 Jetta GL, and although it wasn't very reliable, it didn't scare me away like the '95 Neon did. It is really apples and oranges comparing VW to Chrysler.
No. Not at all. We survived Pearl Harbor and 911.
Airlines have gone through bankruptcies and their planes were still flying. We would have been better off with an orderly bankruptcy process from the onset rather than the meddling of our government and their illegal manipulations.
I won't beat this to death as we have many times previously here, but this always cracks me up. It's only about reliability on this board if it's a GM product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iq5yzJ-Dk
I'll disagree. While GM had poor reliability with many of its models over the years, it is also about the fact that until the Cruze (as an example), GM didn't have a small car that was very competitive. They've also never had a smaller premium car (a la A4, BMW 3 series, MB C-class) that was ever competitive. Until recently they didn't have any midsized sedans (a la Accord, Camry) that were very competitive). Competitive not just in reliability, but in interior quality, handling, ergonomics.
February, 2012 at the Motor Trend auto show in Greenville, SC.
Last time I drove one?
About 2 weeks prior... A friend's Buick. I was the DD for the evening, which I always am, since I no longer drink except on VERY special occasions.
The difference between you and me (or is it you and I) is that I can make a separation between the pre-bailout big-3 and the post-bailout big-3.
You at least don't seem to be able to effectively do that.
In today's market, I would put the design and build quality of a Cruze or Malibu against any comparable Japanes or Korean model. On the other hand...There's no way a Cobalt would have favorably compared to a corresponding Japanese model in 2005.
Reviews and surveys bear that out, regardless what personal experience you may or may not have had.
Nor does the work force (UAW) have the uncontrolled effect that the big-3 management allowed pre-bailout, either. More reasonable pay standards for the product being produced, better attention to detail and quality, etc... are in place now.
If I were shopping today for a new vehicle, I would give every make the same shot at getting my business. That's different than I would have done even 5 years ago.
It's not my philosophy to reward a manufacturer for sub-par performance, regardless how much of a "loyal and patriotic" feeling that might give some others. And again, it's not doing the manufacturer and favors, either... Just continuing to reinforce less efficient behavior.
That behavior may work well in an Amish Community under the Ordnung, but not in a competitive capitalist- based economy.
I don't think airlines are a good analogy. Or maybe that's too good of a comparision. Up here in the UP, it seems like most flights are subsidized by the feds. (link). And that's not counting all the tax funding going into ATC and the runway improvements.
Lots of differences, but lots of similarities, too.
One thing they had in common... A deep hatred between management and the unions.... Some of it well justified, on both sides.
The most ridiculous issue I can remember?
The insistence of the railroad unions in keeping on firemen (which shoveled the coal into the coal fired locomotives) after the conversion to diesel electric locomotives.
The taxpayer is still on the hook for some of the union/worker obligations from the era of "big railway". I suspect we'll see something similar for decades to come in the auto industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
And as I've said many times here, I'm a world-class cheapskate. I would not tolerate a car or manufacturer where I was spending big money on repairs.
And I haven't.
My Ford-buff coworker and I have actually spent considerable seat time in an '05 Civic and an '08 Cobalt. I mean, hundreds upon hundreds of miles. It's quite clear that you have not or you would have to come to the same conclusion about NVH. That's not just about perception; that's reality.
My Cobalt (base model) is absolutely silent and smooth at idle as well. I commented on this with my Civic/Matrix-owning coworker and he said, "Geez, you're right, can't tell it's running".
I for one do not believe there is a big curtain between pre-and post-bankruptcy GM. How could there be?
Incidentally, I just saw my daughter's friend's new Cruze LTZ. Although I wouldn't buy an LTZ, I was enamored with how substantial it looked (large credit to the wheels and tires).
But if you understand history, you understand that yesterday's enemy is today's allie, and vice versa. I can't think of many countries that the U.S. has not had as an adversary or potential adversary. If you've noticed my prior comments I would be fine if the U.S. interacted much less internationally, and even stopped trade with many countries if they didn't provide equal work and trading conditions. But our politicians are namby-pamby - just a few weeks ago we're offering the N. Koreans food! I'd offer them an ultimatum, and tell China and Russia, don't be surprised if they see some blips on their satellite and radars. Iran too would have a countdown going on - peaceful or not, I'd tell Iran their sites are going to get a "Peacekeeper" missile in them, if not dismantled.
Do I hate Japan because we were at war with them 65 years ago - NO. Do I hate Britain because we were at war with them 230 years ago - No. Would I consider retiring to Vietnam - yes. I don't hate races of people; though I may hate some of the leaders at times from those countries. Get rid of the leaders of Iran, and I'd be friends with Iranians and travel there.
But back to GM. I've bought 4 new GM products in the last 20 years. They were good for the price and relatively trouble free. I guess I was hoping to keep GM going. What did they do with my $ and goodwill? They spent it all and more. Arrogance and excessiveness by all in GM. Unwillingness or inability to change. There's not much to like about the actions of the New GM, and I'll state that over and over. The 2 most recent examples are slaps in the face to the U.S. taxpayer - making contracts to hand-out bonuses, and investing in Peugeot. Every penny that GM has for stuff like that, should be going right back to the U.S. Treasury. The New GM should not be hiring lobbyists or making any political contributions either! :mad:
I clearly stated how I choose new vehicles, yet you continue to use a single example (your Cobalt) as the most significant statistical analysis.
Clearly, if everyone had the experiences of my 1st year S-10 Blazer, there wouldn't have been a multi year run. Just like Olympic scoring, the low and high scores get thrown out.... Or at least, they should get thrown out.
Coming to a conclusion as you continuously do using your Cobalt shows clear bias. Just curious, if the car had multiple serious problems, would you be so quick to use it as your basis of reference?
About 15 years ago, there was an incident at a local restaurant that caused multiple serious illnesses. Some were life threatening. Seems they made their own mayo, and it wasn't pasteurized. It became contaminated, which caused the illnesses.
Even so, only about 1/4 of the diners were affected, and the others suffered no illnesses at all.
I'm betting that the folks that got sick have a totally different viewpoint of the incident than those that didn't, but in the end, it DID happen... And, it was significant.
A reasonable person would never discount such an incident, simply because they didn't happen to get sick. Yet, you continuously discount the poor quality the big-3 churned out until recently, based solely on your experience.
That's a bit humorous to many here.
If you don't see much of a difference between pre and post GM bankruptcy, you really should see an optometrist about that tunnel vision you apparently suffer from.
I like to think I can generally find common ground with most folks, but in this case, as it relates to automobiles, I don't see it happening. I don't think your a bad person, but you definitely have a fixed opinion that isn't subject to revision.
Enjoy your own little "reality" as long as it works for you.
And not forgetting the atrocities that happened only 13 years before my birth, does not make one a racist. One needs to remember. Doesn't make me a 'hater'. I'd rather support the U.S. than other countries. But on top of that, I like the products better.
To you, that makes me less enlightened than you. Oh well. I've said it for decades...those who think they are the most open-minded are often the most narrow-minded.
Here is the 2011. Kia is under Chevy.
Regards,
OW
They both have a lot of capital assets and run a lot of red ink, but I agree that the similarities pretty much end there. Airlines are a service sector. They generate cash flow much easier than automotive for a couple of reasons. They get lots of cash from sales before the actual service is delivered and from other things like selling frequent flyer miles to the bank credit card companies. They also often lease rather than own many of their aircraft and facilities. This allows them to amortize lease payments while generally laying out less cash each month than if they owned them. Finally, they can quickly ground aircraft and layoff crew during slow periods in their industry which reduces variable costs including fuel.
One more try: the GM bailout, like the banks went way beyond just GM. Far more would have been lost through vendors (many of who are NOT unionized) and the resulting flow down into the general economy. Yes, the US would have survived if GM tanked, but the recession we experienced would have been far worse. If you follow the industry you know there is no love lost between GM and Ford, yet Ford didn't need a bailout but strongly supported the GM bailout. Why? Common vendors and limited supply base. As they started collapsing I guarantee you Ford would have then also been in BK (rememebr they avoided BK by massive leverage so they had little extra in the bank and little chance of more loans). Even the transplants were concerned about this. Loss of vendors would have not just resulted in layoffs there, but also from the other automakers because parts shortages would have significantly slowed their output (and hence, cash flow). I really doubt George W would have done a GM bailout if the impact was just loss of GM. And you can't just replace lost vendors with no impact because there is start up costs and lead times to bring on new suppliers. Transplants and imports would not have easily fixed it either because transplants have limited capacity and common suppliers, and imports would not offset or solve the result of massive layoffs and vendor failures. Like it or not, the auto sector is a large piece of our economy like real estate. I wish the media would have brought in some business professors instead of listening to political spin from Rush and Fox News propaganda. Now as for the UAW, they did get treated better than airline employees do in BK at the expense of the bondholders and creditors. But the UAW making out doesn't really correlate to impacts and consequences of GM quickly going out of business during a very deep recession.
Until my wife's dad died in 2000 at age 91, he refused anything Japanese, so I understand why some dislike their products... But, I must admit that, unless you were in action then or lost an immediate family member due to action in WWII, it's not very "enlightened", as you might say, to have such a grudge.
WWII wasn't my war, and extremely few participants on any side are still alive, and none (for all practical purposes) have had anything to do with manufactured products for years.
Yet, there are those here in SC that insist on taking change in $1 bills rather than take a $5 bill with Lincoln's picture on it.
Just seems absurd to me... I dont place the sins of the father on the shoulders of the son.
And I certainly don't think either of us is more or less enlightened than the other. Yes, we have differing opinions, but I see that as a good thing. Remember, this is a forum for opinions... There are few forums with hired fact checkers.
Who knows? Maybe in the overall picture, we would agree more than disagree.
One of those areas in in the current big-3 product offering. As I said before, I think some folks involved in running them now have actually seen the light, because there's no question that their products have improved... For a number of reasons.
Ultimately, I don't care where GM has been. It's far more important to me, at least, to see where the big-3 are going...
And, as I have said before, I like the idea of the Volt. I hope GM sticks with improving it instead of giving up in a couple of years. You know, there were still lots of horses for years after Henry Ford started making cars...I don't see it as very surprising that it wasn't an instant hit.
Maybe it would have made a bigger splash if it was named the "iVolt" instead...
The Italian Chrysler marriage might be some kind of revenge too.
We can either compete with the same welfare, or level the playing field with punitive actions. Those are the only solutions.
Well, using your logic, I could say you're a smart cube rat in a telecom company; I'm sure you can figure it out. :P And I did give a list of locations which included the one of which we speak.
It's groups like the UAW which have hastened the exodus of such jobs, while they suck down the survival of their hosts. Ahh, living the "working man's wage" for a bit longer....
Remembering it's the product that makes the day.
However healthy the American auto industry is today, the idea of government bailouts and continued ownership of private companies remain anathema to a large swath of the American public, an audience the Republican candidates are surely aware of. Last month a Gallup poll asked, "Do you approve of the auto bailout?" A majority, 51 percent, said no; 44 percent said yes. Among Republicans, 73 percent said they disapproved of it.
And consider this:
Shafting Ford and taxpayers as GM receives the gift of an $18 BILLION tax credit. Obama announced the biggest profit for GM in its 100-year-history? Dealer inventories loaded with an 89 day inventory (channel stuffing). “GM back to old tricks.”
Wall Street Journal: Corporations in the red, as GM was for years, are allowed to carry forward net operating losses that reduce their future tax liability when they are making money. GM had accumulated about $45 billion in such profit-shielding chits by 2008, with a book value of about $18 billion. When companies enter bankruptcy, carry-forwards disappear or are greatly limited under IRS section 382, which kicks in when ownership changes by more than 50 percentage points
So when GM entered bankruptcy in June 2009, the government swapped the debt the auto maker owed it as a creditor for 61% of “new GM,” while handing another chunk to the United Auto Workers. But new GM also inherited the accumulated net operating losses that would have turned into a pumpkin in normal bankruptcy.
In a 2011 working paper, J. Mark Ramseyer of Harvard and Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University argue that by manipulating corporate tax rules by fiat, “Treasury gave the firm (and its owners, including the UAW) $18 billion more in assets.” Thus a Democratic Administration gave “a massive tax benefit to one of the party’s biggest supporters.” The other problem is that the move put Ford and GM’s other competitors at a disadvantage, as bailouts always do.
With Obama boasting of GM’s highest profits in it’s 100-year-history, whatever the truth, we remind him that GM still owes taxpayers at least $25 BILLION, and there that’s hidden $18 BILLION that even the Wall Street Journal missed for awhile. We haven’t forgotten shareholders who lost everything – their share price, their retirement, their health insurance, maybe their homes, surely their peace of mind.
Failure takes a long time to clean up and the inertia tends to repeat the same as we know regarding Chrsler. Some companies are built to fail! :surprise:
Regards,
OW
Agreed the prop is a cheapie piece.
Regards,
OW
In a speech to the Automotive Press Association, Ford defended its fleet business, which made up 31% of U.S. vehicle sales through the first two months of 2012, Bloomberg News reports. That's down from 33% a year ago, but it still ties Chrysler for highest fleet share. GM sells 27% to fleet, followed by Nissan (24%) and Toyota (17%), according to Automotive News. Hyundai-Kia and Honda are in the single digits. Fleet sales, especially those to daily rental fleets, are less profitable and can stymie resale values on a given model. But Kevin Koswick, director of Ford's North American fleet, lease and remarketing operations, told the APA that the fleet business was worth $57 billion last year — "a very productive and profitable business" for Ford.
So what has changed from pre-bankruptcy? JIT inventory? No. Lower fleet sales thus hurting profits and lowering resale values? No.
Looks like buy high and sell low will continue for most GM customers!
Please remind me what's REALLY different at GM.
Regards,
OW
My personal experience is that GM cars cost less than other cars upfront, and that's where I'd rather save my money, since I don't trade in every three or four years like I did when I was a bachelor. Having a GM card helps in that respect, of course.
My buddy's 2006 Xterra, which stickered for around $26,000 when new, also has a hood prop.
As for gooseneck hinges, I remember they didn't used to be so bad in the old days, because when you closed the trunk they went into an area that was boxed in, so they wouldn't crush your luggage. But nowadays, to make trunks open wider, I think the hinges have to take up more space to have a wider range of travel, so if they boxed off the area where the gooseneck rests when the trunk is fully closed, it would take up more trunk space. Still, that's basically a useless area of the trunk anyway, so they might as well.
Absolutely nothing. As you well know marketing costs are a significant, if not the largest operating cost, of a manufacturer. So it is a trade-off. Lower marketing costs to fleet sales in return for a slightly lower contribution margin. It is a zero sum game.
As to the GM and Chrysler bailout it was not as much a financial bailout as it was a psychological bailout. No American had the stomach to watch the complete collapse of the American automobile industry. Most tend to focus on Chrysler and GM but the suppliers would have been the ones most affected.
And the NOL (Net Operating Loss) carryforward. That is precisely its function and what Congress intended in the first place—that is, it encourages entrepreneurs to take risks. In lean or unprofitable years such losses are used to offset profits in future years.
So you buy mostly cars that are widely sold to fleets. That works.
Regards,
OW
I can only comment on my one experience, but in twelve straight weeks of rental cars last spring, I had one GM product..a Malibu. The rest were Fords or Kias or Toyotas. This was Minneapolis.
Fleet sales, especially those to daily rental fleets, are less profitable and can stymie resale values on a given model.
IOW, deterioration of residual values, mostly on the higher sales volume models, which drive profits lower. As cost pressure mounts (and dependence on large trucks continues), you know the drill.
And the NOL (Net Operating Loss) carryforward. That is precisely its function and what Congress intended in the first place—that is, it encourages entrepreneurs to take risks. In lean or unprofitable years such losses are used to offset profits in future years.
Welcome to Government-Owned USA.
“It’s an arcane and hard-to-follow way of disguising billion of dollars paid to firms that, for whatever reason, are politically favored,” says J. Mark Ramseyer, a Harvard law professor who wrote a paper on a similar tax treatment given to General Motors when it was taken over. “It’s one thing to announce through TARP that you’re going to give a firm a billion dollars. But if you issue a letter saying that the company can use a net operating loss that they would otherwise lose, that’s harder for people to follow,” he says, referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Program enacted in 2008 by the U.S. government to buy assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen them. Besides AIG and GM, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac got tax breaks as part of their bailouts.
“It’s unprecedented,” says New York–based corporate tax consultant and regular CFO columnist Robert Willens. “It’s a deal where the party that benefits from the waiver of the rule is the one that’s waiving it. In the private sector, that could never happen.”
Regards,
OW
It's not just fleet sales that's the problem, but fleet dumping. After all, rental agencies, taxi cab companies, police departments, company motor pools, etc, all need cars too. However, when you over-produce, and then start dumping these cars into fleets at cheap prices to get rid of them, it increases turnover and floods the market.
I remember back around 1996, our gov't agency bought five Olds Achievas for a grand total of $65,000. Or, $13,000 per car. By that time, the Achieva was a car nobody really wanted anymore, and it was surviving mainly on fleet sales. I think they've finally been used up and auctioned off. Now we've got mainly Impalas, although I've seen a couple of Fusions in the fleet...even a hybrid or two! So, our tastes are improving, at least.
FWIW, the first rental car I ever had was a 1991 Civic sedan, so even the almighty Honda makes it into the rental fleets on occasion.
Don't get me wrong, I care about reliability too, else several European makes would make it to my car-shopping A-list too. Trouble is, repair and maintenance costs for Euro makes would eat me alive. Domestic makes, especially Buick and Cadillac, have the right mix of styling and reliability to meet my standards head-on!
LOL
You'll appreciate the next Apple iProduct.
Apple Prepares to Release iThink
"Apple CEO Tim Cook is expected to announce a product aimed at improving the intelligence of Americans. It's called the iThink and it's about the size of a first-generation iPod but, instead of headphones, the device's wires terminate in sticky pads that are designed to be placed on the user's head. The technology is so revolutionary that it will be limited to distribution in the United States."
More at the link to a Columbus tech guru's newsletter. Last article near bottom:
http://www.techbyter.com/current.html
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't think you're considering the option that I've stated. That GM stopped existing at midnight 1 day, with the books being closed then. At 12:01 the government could have a) either taken over, or b) sold or given the assets to someone like Ford; and then the factories open the next day just like they would have if it were GM. Then there would have been a meeting the next morning with the employees, saying this is now corporation HN. You will now be offered a job with HN, if you want to continue, there is no GM and no severance package.
We did have an Auto Czar and we saw with Wall Street examples that apparently the federal government can do this.
So 1 more time - the closure of GM, the closure of the factories, the layoff of the employees, and a normal bankruptcy, were NOT the only options and/or consequences.
The story of why GM needed to be bailed out was nothing more than political cover. It was a story created to sound so awful, that the politicians would not get much heat for having done so. It's all about protecting the wealthy and powerful, and politicians getting reelected.
If a rod breaks, I can find a broomstick.
Simple and elegant doesn't mean cheap or poorly engineered. If you insist, we could chrome a prop-rod for you.