$2 a gallon gas killed the spring-loaded hinges. Now that $4 a gallon gas is here, the next-gen prop-rods will likely be inflatable tubes. Still don't get why inflatable bag car jacks never took off.
$2 a gallon gas killed the spring-loaded hinges. Now that $4 a gallon gas is here, the next-gen prop-rods will likely be inflatable tubes
My guess is cost cutting, more than saving weight. Even with the gas strut, you still need hinges for the hood. Years ago, I went to the junkyard to buy some hood hinges for my '69 Bonneville. Even those big, bulky things weren't all that heavy. However, they were probably more expensive to manufacture in the first place than just throwing on a cheap gas strut. And those old fashioned hood hinges pretty much lasted forever, so they were almost overkill. The only reason my Bonneville needed a replacement was because the previous owner hadn't closed the hood all the way and it flew open on the highway. The hood would still open and close, but didn't fit all that well. When fully closed, it was raised up back toward the windshield, and the corners were bent up.
Gas struts usually don't last nearly that long...my experience is they start to fail around the 10 year mark. But, that's long enough to get you past the warranty period!
My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had gas struts for the hood, and I remember after 9-10 years, we started carrying a broomstick around to prop the hood open. Also, around that mark, my 2000 Intrepid got to the point where the hood was getting a bit harder to open. Once it was fully open, it was just fine, but part way, and it would slowly start to close.
My '79 5th Ave has gas struts for the trunk, and amazingly they still work. I guess it's possible that they were replaced at some point, although I've had the car over 10 years now, so if so, it was before then. Also, I think they are getting a bit weak, as it takes a little effort to raise the trunk lid. Once fully open, it'll stay there, though. My other '79, a base New Yorker, had its struts fail years ago, and the previous owner replaced them with the wrong type which don't work well at all. So, I keep a broom stick with that car, too!
One plus for those struts though, is that when they fail, they're pretty cheap/easy to replace. Not necessarily so with the old spring hood hinges and torsion bar trunk hinges.
I'm always impressed with mine, especially when purchase price is factored in
I always thought the Cobalt's biggest shortcoming was the fuel economy. I'm not sure how it fares in the real world, but judging by the window sticker it wasn't so hot. The base 4-cyl/automatic, which is what I would've chosen, was only rated at 24/32 at the time (today's stricter standard has it at 21/29). In contrast, the Corolla from that era was 30/38 (around 26/34 now).
But, I'm sure a Cobalt had a lower transaction price than something like a Civic or Corolla, so you have to factor that in.
Another supposed shortcoming of the Cobalt was actually a selling point, in my book. Many people complained about the car having a big, ponderous feel to it, rather than a nimble, lightweight, tossable feeling normally associated with small cars. While it might not win the slalom, that's probably one reason the car gives a smoother, quieter ride than the competition. Another area where it had a big car feel to me was the seating position. Good legroom, steering wheel at the right position, not too much cramping in the footwell, armrest, center console, dash, etc. I was as comfortable behind the wheel of a Cobalt as I was behind the wheel of a decent mid or even full-sized car. In contrast, the Civic and especially Corolla felt cramped to me.
I'm not sure what the city EPA rating was on my Cobalt XFE, but the highway was 37, and I've repeatedly gotten that while driving 70 or higher across the hilly Pennsylvania Turnpike. I still have all the stickers in the glovebox; I should go check. I know they advertised better highway mileage on the XFE than other competing makes. It is a 5-speed.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
>I always thought the Cobalt's biggest shortcoming was the fuel economy. I'm not sure how it fares in the real world,
My son and I drove the Cobalt to OSU and back two weeks ago, He got 36 mpg including a couple miles off freeway to his apartment and back. Frankly, anecdotal reports like this are so erratic and dependent on the driver's actual habits and methods that they don't mean much. Of course, I could have driven the 03 leSabre and gotten 32-33 mpg at 62-63 mph. Comparisonwise sounds a little low for the Cobalt. I got 40 mpg indicated on the Cobalt on one of my first trips into the hills of N. Kentucky driving 55 on the freeway most of the way.
I love how peppy the Variable Valve engine is.
I frankly don't give a hoot if the Civic I could have bought would have given me 43 mpg on the Columbus trip. I've watched Civics and they bounce on every little bump. The cost difference between the mileages is trivial. It's less than 1 gallon on my 200 mile trip to Columbus.
I'm happy with my Cobalt and I hope others are happy with their bouncy little Fortes, etc. Just don't have them telling me how awful my Cobalt is.
Around here, many local law enforcement agencies have moved to Chevys. The SC highway patrol have been moving to Chrysler products for several years now, using Chargers.
An outfit calling itself Carbon Motors specifically designed a police car, and it looked promising for a while, but I think they were depending on a lot of government ($$$$$) support and it fell through. I haven't heard much about them lately.
The Philadelphia Police Department has a hodge-podge of many vehicles, but most of the fleet consists of Crown Victorias and an increasing number of Impalas. The Highway Patrol unit uses Dodge Chargers. Do you have any pics of this Carbon Motors police vehicle?
Depending on the circumstances, buying a car sold heavily to fleet usage can be advantageous, especially if you intend on keeping the car forever.
Usually is sells for less, and if you aren't concerned with resale, the only real negative comes into play if your car gets totaled, and the insurance value is reduced.
From a manufacturer viewpoint, selling SOME vehicles to fleets can be advantageous, because it gets drivers who otherwise may never consider a particular vehicle for personal purchase into the buying arena.
The aim, of course, is to accurately determine the correct value of "SOME".
Some great points in your post. What was stated so well is that by bailing out a company that had massively failed, we weakend the competitor (Ford) who DID make decisions that allowed them to survive. And supporting the weak at the expense of the stronger is NOT the way to help keep the U.S. competitive in the world.
I suspect that even more than that, Ford didn't know how bad it would be and wasn't sure they wouldn't need a bailout at some point, too.
But the fact remains that for years to come, Ford's performance will be substantially weakened by GM having received the massive bailout, and the continuing tax breaks.
General Motors Board of Directors just announced that they have fired CEO Dan Akerson due to an internal scandal regarding the Chevrolet Volt. After months of fire allegations, poor sales, and constant media attack, the Board was suspicious as to why there was not any real effort from the CEO to come out and set the facts straight.
A few weeks into the investigation, they uncovered that Akerson had an internal bounty program that would pay employees up to $75,000 bonuses every time they did something to sabotage the Volt and made sure it was in a negative light. Details of the exact program are still sketchy. But, what we have learned so far is that $25,000 went to anybody that could come up with ways to poorly market the Volt. Joel Ewanick being head of GM marketing received $125,000 after airing commercials that did little to show off the cars attributes like the gas station ads.
$50,000 went to employees that got the media to constantly publish negative articles about the Volt. No details have been released on who received this bounty. Mary Barra received a staggering $600,000 in this program though we do not fully know how much she contributed towards ruining the Volt's image. Though we do know it includes the top $75,000 bonus for making the Volt look unsafe with the fire allegations that have been going around the past few months.
As of now we do not know if anyone else involved will face any punishment from the board. As for who will take over as CEO,the Board has announced that they have elected to bring back former GM CEO Rick Wagoner to take the reins.
But by having the GM bailout, Ford's position was also strengthened: It's suppliers stayed healthy and in business. The recession weakened sooner, customers moved over to Ford because they didn't take the bailout, The pcs of GM resulting from a breakup would have became new competitors that had an advantage of being purchased for pennies on the dime, the added unemployment would have devastated the rust belt further, ruining the values of Ford worker's homes, and the union could have possibly have become much more militant in the face of such an economic onslaught as in the demise of GM. It will take quite a defense from America to fight off the foreign onslaught and to have someone else be the main target and pay for a fair share of pro-American advertising is better.
Maybe I'll just make a list of numbers, maybe one of them will be the value of the gifts received by Hyunkia and the Japanese peers by their respective governments - not to mention the value of gifts received on the backs of the American taxpayer.
I see just as many "managers" sucking down the survival too, especially with their bloated pay and benefits which make most blue collar workers look like paupers - remember who makes the decisions for shoddy materials and unlikeable designs. Those who can - do, those who can't - teach, those who can't teach - manage, those who can't manage - consult, those who can't consult - work in HR.
And sometimes it is easier to make a better product when you are aided and coddled for a generation.
18B, get back to me when you are talking real money :shades: ...that's about a mere 5 years worth of direct aid to Israel alone, not counting the indirect aid and the money pissed away on the just as parasitic neighbors. I'd rather burn the money on domestic industry. Built to fail - American foreign and domestic policy of the past couple generations.
I am surprised at that Charger, seeing as it shares some DNA with the MB W210 E-class. I wonder if the Chrysler 300 also has a prop. I haven't seen any MB with a hood prop, all weird hinges and springs and struts (which I have never seen fail).
It is amusing how Euro and Aussie GM subsidiaries have produced more appealing products for ages - when they too have high wages and unions. Must be that evil socialism (as Oz and Yourup are very socialist in the eyes of the American "free marketeer") or something.
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
But who would have bought them? Ford didn't have the financial resources left and before all the Ford leveraging GM had actually approached them about a merger to which Ford responded "No". The transplants didn't want it. A lot of old equipment, and even if they eliminated the UAW in BK, many of the skilled or experienced people in the local area work pools will be former UAW. I just don't think that would have worked out well and would have probably just further stretched the government's involement. If GM was an attractive investment then someone other than the gov would have stepped in and got it on the cheap.
But by having the GM bailout, Ford's position was also strengthened: It's suppliers stayed healthy and in business.
Probably in the short term... but they now get to have a competitor live for years with extra advantages like paying no income taxes.
The pcs of GM resulting from a breakup would have became new competitors that had an advantage of being purchased for pennies on the dime, the added unemployment would have devastated the rust belt further, ruining the values of Ford worker's homes, and the union could have possibly have become much more militant in the face of such an economic onslaught as in the demise of GM.
The reality is that this you've given one scenario, but there are many others. As other posters have indicated, GM might have opened the next day as multiple companies, or a new company under different management. There might have been much more significant "pruning" of under-performing lines and assets. And those laid off might have been forming some startups that would further strengthen our economic diversity... perhaps over time - not immediately.
History has shown that strength results from adversity. Take the US vs. the Eastern European block. How did government control and support help Ladas and Trabants and Yugos to be competitive?
I see just as many "managers" sucking down the survival too, especially with their bloated pay and benefits which make most blue collar workers look like paupers - remember who makes the decisions for shoddy materials and unlikeable designs.
Absolutely - there are incompetents at all levels of organizations. The good organizations weed them out more successfully than the others. GM didn't do a very good job of it - they appear to be improving.
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?
It would have been preferable if Chrysler would have never been bailed out in the first place. That way the 2nd bailout would have been avoided, along with millions and millions of lemons sold :lemon: since the first bailout.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
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.
This argument you present is complete nonsense. Assuming the whole argument is correct, that letting GM fail would cause a domino effect of lost vendors and suppliers going under, couldn't the government have simply bailed out all the suppliers and vendors OTHER manufacturers other than GM relied upon, for pennies on the dollars, compared to what it cost to save GM?
The answer is yes, we could have bailed out any companies devastated by the loss of GM for pennies on the dollar compared to the disastrous GM bailout.
How's that stock price doing? How many billions are lost if we sold our tax money in the GM stock right now? How many billions in income tax are we subsidizing each year for GM?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
There are a lot more vendors, so how do you know it would have cost less? Could very well have been more expensive and that's before all the vendor and their creditor attorneys got involved. GM is still cheaper than the Wall Street bailouts. By the way, the first Chrysler bailout wasn't really a bailout, it was a loan that was paid back with interest ahead of schedule. But IIRC aren't you the poster who several months ago basically said its fine if Korea bailed out Hyundai, but not OK for the US and its economic interests to do the same in our country. Subsidized imports apparently are fine, but not any subsidized American companies and jobs. Sorry, I value American jobs and economic interests more than you apparantly do.
I suspect that even more than that, Ford didn't know how bad it would be and wasn't sure they wouldn't need a bailout at some point, too.
I hadn't heard that before, but I think you hit the nail on the head. That is likey the BIGGEST reason Ford wanted a GM bailout, because Ford knows they are incompetent too, just a bit less incompetent than Chrysler and GM; so voting for a bailout for them would save them looking awkward in the future when they ask for a bailout for themselves.
You just hit a BINGO!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
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.
Actually the vast majority of Americans were against the bailout then, and still a majority are against it now.
Perhaps if it was suggested to bailout the little suppliers that would have been affected rather than the HUGE conglomerate of GM, more would have been supportive.
Perhaps if it wasn't the 2nd time Chrysler was asking for a bailout, more would have been supportive.
If it wasn't for spineless Republicans like Bush, corrupt Democrats, the UAW, and an illogical Obama President, the bailouts wouldn't have happened.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
If GM was an attractive investment then someone other than the gov would have stepped in and got it on the cheap.
Well, that is what should have happened. But your premise is faulty. Gm wasn't an attractive investment. Someone other than the Gov't should have stepped in and got it REAL REAL cheap!. The problem is the Gov't stepped in when they felt the price was cheap enough; when it wasn't nearly so.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Could very well have been more expensive and that's before all the vendor and their creditor attorneys got involved.
If it's even possible that the vendor required bailouts due to GM going under would have exceeded the cost of bailing out GM, then they should have been allowed to go under for so incompetently managing their manufacturing companies as well.
The first chrysler bailout was a Bailout in every sense of the term. It was a LOAN guaranteed by the government because no one in their right mind would loan Chrysler any money on "business" sense alone. I'd like a 1,000,000 dollar home... where's my gov't guaranteed loan? I'll just keep refinancing and cashing out for 28 years and then ask for another bailout like Chrysler did!
Subsidized products are OK if they don't use my tax money. I value american jobs and economic interests, I just don't see bailouts as a good way to do that.
Also, if we are going to bail out companies, can we at least bail out competently run and managed companies? It seems we only bail out the worst of the worst.
Why not lower taxes and fees for all evenly across the board, rather than pick winners and losers with "subsidies" for the special few connected? High taxes and "special white collar welfare" for corporations only serves to keep power in the hands of the Politicians.
I think Apple deserves a tax break so that I can get my next Iphone for $9.99 instead of $199.99
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
This thread should be renamed by Edmunds, "The GM Bailout--Let's Continue to Complain Three Years Later".
Let's talk about current product..I'll pick Chevrolets:
Sonic--although I hate the looks of the hatch, I think it is neat that even the base model comes with aluminum wheels instead of plastic wheel covers, and of course I do like that it is the only car in its size and price class assembled in the U.S....and not even in the deep south, amazing!
Cruze--I can see me moving into a Cruze in a number of years. The looks are pleasant if not riveting...although I think Ford is adopting the 'insectoid' look; luckily it seems to me that GM hasn't yet.
New Malibu--Nicer interior than the old; looks like a less-expensive car outside to my eyes though.
Camaro--Too impractical for me even when I was a young bachelor, but I would like to drive an LS-1, even once. The gun-slit windows would bother me, but I do think it feels retro--wide interior. Like it from the rear best.
Impala--OK styling, silly rear seat room, neat that they upgraded the engine and trans this far into the life cycle. Anxious to see the next one.
Traverse--not as nice looking as the other Lambdas I don't think, but supposedly a good vehicle.
Equinox--I think the Terrain looks better, but isn't as reliable; didn't I read that in CR someplace Ha!
Corvette--I like the light blue metallic base coupe, non-chrome wheels, glass top. That's a car I could like to own; great heritage, all-American, but wouldn't have a red or yellow one!
P.S. Saw my first Buick Verano on the road today. Looks dressy for that size class; nice to see chrome returning, but not fond of the chrome 'eyebrows' over the taillights in back!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
This thread should be renamed by Edmunds, "The GM Bailout--Let's Continue to Complain Three Years Later".
As soon as GM sends a check to tax payers and the US treasury for BILLIONS and BILLIONS in losses, including stock losses instead of issuing bonuses to win votes in November, I'll stop complaining.
But when they ask for a 2nd bailout in short order, don't say I didn't tell you so! :mad:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I really don't think GM by itself would have been bailed out if it wasn't for the extended consequences. I just don't see George W and the republicans doing that. A lot of companies get direct or often indirect support - Boeing is a prime example. The US gov needs to meet foreign competitors' gov assistance programs to preclude US companies from being disadvantaged in global competition. I agree that gov shouldn't pick winners and losers, and that goes for the tax code as well, but as I said I think the GM decision really wasn't about GM. Now Chrysler and Cerebus with its connected politicians might be another story. Another problem with gov involvement is inconsistency. When George W decided to bailout the banks, Lehman appeared to be treated differently and that inconsistency had financial and economic ramifications. I don't believe GM will be given another bailout now that the economy is improving, so the new mgt team needs to produce and I do see some improvements over there. Another problem over the past several decades IMO is the seemingly excessive interference with the marketplace by the Federal Reserve. What we should be doing though is demanding a level playing field instead of constantly letting countries like India, China and Korea take advantage of us.
I can't get into these micro carts like Sonic. The Cruze is too plain looking. The new Malibu looks good, but it needs that upcoming new 2.5L four banger and I'm concerned that its new dimensions have taken away pasenger and luggage space. The Camaro looks like someone stepped on it from the rear. The Impala needs to be updated sooner than 2014, but its an alright used car buy. From what I've seen, the 2013 Traverse update will clean it up substantially. The Lambda's are nice vehicles. I go back and forth on the Equinox vs. Terrain, but the updated new 4 cyl engine is needed right now. I suspect the CR differences are either from the small Terrain sample size compared to Equinox, or maybe a greater percentage of Terrains are 6 cylinder models. The next update will probably further improve these vehicle sales numbers. Haven't really liked the Corvette since the 67 model. The Verano looks nice, but I still wonder if it really belongs as a Buick model.
Comments
Yes indeed. Hood lift.
IT's a nicely done small car. Love mine.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But what's frustrating to some is that we could've done so much better, imidazo!
I'm always impressed with mine, especially when purchase price is factored in.
My guess is cost cutting, more than saving weight. Even with the gas strut, you still need hinges for the hood. Years ago, I went to the junkyard to buy some hood hinges for my '69 Bonneville. Even those big, bulky things weren't all that heavy. However, they were probably more expensive to manufacture in the first place than just throwing on a cheap gas strut. And those old fashioned hood hinges pretty much lasted forever, so they were almost overkill. The only reason my Bonneville needed a replacement was because the previous owner hadn't closed the hood all the way and it flew open on the highway. The hood would still open and close, but didn't fit all that well. When fully closed, it was raised up back toward the windshield, and the corners were bent up.
Gas struts usually don't last nearly that long...my experience is they start to fail around the 10 year mark. But, that's long enough to get you past the warranty period!
My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had gas struts for the hood, and I remember after 9-10 years, we started carrying a broomstick around to prop the hood open. Also, around that mark, my 2000 Intrepid got to the point where the hood was getting a bit harder to open. Once it was fully open, it was just fine, but part way, and it would slowly start to close.
My '79 5th Ave has gas struts for the trunk, and amazingly they still work. I guess it's possible that they were replaced at some point, although I've had the car over 10 years now, so if so, it was before then. Also, I think they are getting a bit weak, as it takes a little effort to raise the trunk lid. Once fully open, it'll stay there, though. My other '79, a base New Yorker, had its struts fail years ago, and the previous owner replaced them with the wrong type which don't work well at all. So, I keep a broom stick with that car, too!
One plus for those struts though, is that when they fail, they're pretty cheap/easy to replace. Not necessarily so with the old spring hood hinges and torsion bar trunk hinges.
I always thought the Cobalt's biggest shortcoming was the fuel economy. I'm not sure how it fares in the real world, but judging by the window sticker it wasn't so hot. The base 4-cyl/automatic, which is what I would've chosen, was only rated at 24/32 at the time (today's stricter standard has it at 21/29). In contrast, the Corolla from that era was 30/38 (around 26/34 now).
But, I'm sure a Cobalt had a lower transaction price than something like a Civic or Corolla, so you have to factor that in.
Another supposed shortcoming of the Cobalt was actually a selling point, in my book. Many people complained about the car having a big, ponderous feel to it, rather than a nimble, lightweight, tossable feeling normally associated with small cars. While it might not win the slalom, that's probably one reason the car gives a smoother, quieter ride than the competition. Another area where it had a big car feel to me was the seating position. Good legroom, steering wheel at the right position, not too much cramping in the footwell, armrest, center console, dash, etc. I was as comfortable behind the wheel of a Cobalt as I was behind the wheel of a decent mid or even full-sized car. In contrast, the Civic and especially Corolla felt cramped to me.
Okay, I'll buy that. For a while there you could only buy the gas struts in pairs, but after 10 years, that's probably the better practice anyway.
My son and I drove the Cobalt to OSU and back two weeks ago, He got 36 mpg including a couple miles off freeway to his apartment and back. Frankly, anecdotal reports like this are so erratic and dependent on the driver's actual habits and methods that they don't mean much. Of course, I could have driven the 03 leSabre and gotten 32-33 mpg at 62-63 mph. Comparisonwise sounds a little low for the Cobalt. I got 40 mpg indicated on the Cobalt on one of my first trips into the hills of N. Kentucky driving 55 on the freeway most of the way.
I love how peppy the Variable Valve engine is.
I frankly don't give a hoot if the Civic I could have bought would have given me 43 mpg on the Columbus trip. I've watched Civics and they bounce on every little bump. The cost difference between the mileages is trivial. It's less than 1 gallon on my 200 mile trip to Columbus.
I'm happy with my Cobalt and I hope others are happy with their bouncy little Fortes, etc. Just don't have them telling me how awful my Cobalt is.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Come to think of it, perhaps GM itself should have renamed the company to iGM...
An outfit calling itself Carbon Motors specifically designed a police car, and it looked promising for a while, but I think they were depending on a lot of government ($$$$$) support and it fell through. I haven't heard much about them lately.
Usually is sells for less, and if you aren't concerned with resale, the only real negative comes into play if your car gets totaled, and the insurance value is reduced.
From a manufacturer viewpoint, selling SOME vehicles to fleets can be advantageous, because it gets drivers who otherwise may never consider a particular vehicle for personal purchase into the buying arena.
The aim, of course, is to accurately determine the correct value of "SOME".
(A. Because they could not easily replace the suppliers that would have gone broke too).
I suspect that even more than that, Ford didn't know how bad it would be and wasn't sure they wouldn't need a bailout at some point, too.
But the fact remains that for years to come, Ford's performance will be substantially weakened by GM having received the massive bailout, and the continuing tax breaks.
And I had previously understated its N.A. parts content. I thought it was 75%. It's 80%.
A few weeks into the investigation, they uncovered that Akerson had an internal bounty program that would pay employees up to $75,000 bonuses every time they did something to sabotage the Volt and made sure it was in a negative light. Details of the exact program are still sketchy. But, what we have learned so far is that $25,000 went to anybody that could come up with ways to poorly market the Volt. Joel Ewanick being head of GM marketing received $125,000 after airing commercials that did little to show off the cars attributes like the gas station ads.
$50,000 went to employees that got the media to constantly publish negative articles about the Volt. No details have been released on who received this bounty. Mary Barra received a staggering $600,000 in this program though we do not fully know how much she contributed towards ruining the Volt's image. Though we do know it includes the top $75,000 bonus for making the Volt look unsafe with the fire allegations that have been going around the past few months.
As of now we do not know if anyone else involved will face any punishment from the board. As for who will take over as CEO,the Board has announced that they have elected to bring back former GM CEO Rick Wagoner to take the reins.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/breaking-gm-board-directors-fire-ceo-dan-- akerson-109791/
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.carbonmotors.com/
Excellently written, though!
I see just as many "managers" sucking down the survival too, especially with their bloated pay and benefits which make most blue collar workers look like paupers - remember who makes the decisions for shoddy materials and unlikeable designs. Those who can - do, those who can't - teach, those who can't teach - manage, those who can't manage - consult, those who can't consult - work in HR.
18B, get back to me when you are talking real money :shades: ...that's about a mere 5 years worth of direct aid to Israel alone, not counting the indirect aid and the money pissed away on the just as parasitic neighbors. I'd rather burn the money on domestic industry. Built to fail - American foreign and domestic policy of the past couple generations.
Can't throw a baseball around here without hitting a rental Corolla or Camry.
I did see a rental Impala the other day - loaded with leather and moonroof.
But who would have bought them? Ford didn't have the financial resources left and before all the Ford leveraging GM had actually approached them about a merger to which Ford responded "No". The transplants didn't want it. A lot of old equipment, and even if they eliminated the UAW in BK, many of the skilled or experienced people in the local area work pools will be former UAW. I just don't think that would have worked out well and would have probably just further stretched the government's involement. If GM was an attractive investment then someone other than the gov would have stepped in and got it on the cheap.
Probably in the short term... but they now get to have a competitor live for years with extra advantages like paying no income taxes.
The pcs of GM resulting from a breakup would have became new competitors that had an advantage of being purchased for pennies on the dime, the added unemployment would have devastated the rust belt further, ruining the values of Ford worker's homes, and the union could have possibly have become much more militant in the face of such an economic onslaught as in the demise of GM.
The reality is that this you've given one scenario, but there are many others. As other posters have indicated, GM might have opened the next day as multiple companies, or a new company under different management. There might have been much more significant "pruning" of under-performing lines and assets. And those laid off might have been forming some startups that would further strengthen our economic diversity... perhaps over time - not immediately.
History has shown that strength results from adversity. Take the US vs. the Eastern European block. How did government control and support help Ladas and Trabants and Yugos to be competitive?
Absolutely - there are incompetents at all levels of organizations. The good organizations weed them out more successfully than the others. GM didn't do a very good job of it - they appear to be improving.
Well, didn't work for Chrysler so far on Srike 2....
Regards,
OW
It would have been preferable if Chrysler would have never been bailed out in the first place. That way the 2nd bailout would have been avoided, along with millions and millions of lemons sold :lemon: since the first bailout.
This argument you present is complete nonsense. Assuming the whole argument is correct, that letting GM fail would cause a domino effect of lost vendors and suppliers going under, couldn't the government have simply bailed out all the suppliers and vendors OTHER manufacturers other than GM relied upon, for pennies on the dollars, compared to what it cost to save GM?
The answer is yes, we could have bailed out any companies devastated by the loss of GM for pennies on the dollar compared to the disastrous GM bailout.
How's that stock price doing? How many billions are lost if we sold our tax money in the GM stock right now? How many billions in income tax are we subsidizing each year for GM?
I hadn't heard that before, but I think you hit the nail on the head. That is likey the BIGGEST reason Ford wanted a GM bailout, because Ford knows they are incompetent too, just a bit less incompetent than Chrysler and GM; so voting for a bailout for them would save them looking awkward in the future when they ask for a bailout for themselves.
You just hit a BINGO!
As I've stated before, why didn't Ford and everyone else simply support a bailout of those supposed "going broke if GM goes broke suppliers?"
Seems it would have been easy and cheap to save the suppliers with a bailout rather than the massive one for GM!
Actually the vast majority of Americans were against the bailout then, and still a majority are against it now.
Perhaps if it was suggested to bailout the little suppliers that would have been affected rather than the HUGE conglomerate of GM, more would have been supportive.
Perhaps if it wasn't the 2nd time Chrysler was asking for a bailout, more would have been supportive.
If it wasn't for spineless Republicans like Bush, corrupt Democrats, the UAW, and an illogical Obama President, the bailouts wouldn't have happened.
Well, that is what should have happened. But your premise is faulty. Gm wasn't an attractive investment. Someone other than the Gov't should have stepped in and got it REAL REAL cheap!. The problem is the Gov't stepped in when they felt the price was cheap enough; when it wasn't nearly so.
If it's even possible that the vendor required bailouts due to GM going under would have exceeded the cost of bailing out GM, then they should have been allowed to go under for so incompetently managing their manufacturing companies as well.
The first chrysler bailout was a Bailout in every sense of the term. It was a LOAN guaranteed by the government because no one in their right mind would loan Chrysler any money on "business" sense alone. I'd like a 1,000,000 dollar home... where's my gov't guaranteed loan? I'll just keep refinancing and cashing out for 28 years and then ask for another bailout like Chrysler did!
Subsidized products are OK if they don't use my tax money. I value american jobs and economic interests, I just don't see bailouts as a good way to do that.
Also, if we are going to bail out companies, can we at least bail out competently run and managed companies? It seems we only bail out the worst of the worst.
Why not lower taxes and fees for all evenly across the board, rather than pick winners and losers with "subsidies" for the special few connected? High taxes and "special white collar welfare" for corporations only serves to keep power in the hands of the Politicians.
I think Apple deserves a tax break so that I can get my next Iphone for $9.99 instead of $199.99
Let's talk about current product..I'll pick Chevrolets:
Sonic--although I hate the looks of the hatch, I think it is neat that even the base model comes with aluminum wheels instead of plastic wheel covers, and of course I do like that it is the only car in its size and price class assembled in the U.S....and not even in the deep south, amazing!
Cruze--I can see me moving into a Cruze in a number of years. The looks are pleasant if not riveting...although I think Ford is adopting the 'insectoid' look; luckily it seems to me that GM hasn't yet.
New Malibu--Nicer interior than the old; looks like a less-expensive car outside to my eyes though.
Camaro--Too impractical for me even when I was a young bachelor, but I would like to drive an LS-1, even once. The gun-slit windows would bother me, but I do think it feels retro--wide interior. Like it from the rear best.
Impala--OK styling, silly rear seat room, neat that they upgraded the engine and trans this far into the life cycle. Anxious to see the next one.
Traverse--not as nice looking as the other Lambdas I don't think, but supposedly a good vehicle.
Equinox--I think the Terrain looks better, but isn't as reliable; didn't I read that in CR someplace
Corvette--I like the light blue metallic base coupe, non-chrome wheels, glass top. That's a car I could like to own; great heritage, all-American, but wouldn't have a red or yellow one!
P.S. Saw my first Buick Verano on the road today. Looks dressy for that size class; nice to see chrome returning, but not fond of the chrome 'eyebrows' over the taillights in back!
As soon as GM sends a check to tax payers and the US treasury for BILLIONS and BILLIONS in losses, including stock losses instead of issuing bonuses to win votes in November, I'll stop complaining.
But when they ask for a 2nd bailout in short order, don't say I didn't tell you so! :mad:
Driving an Eurovan all these years would have made me a pretty good mechanic by now though. Or good and broke.
I can't get into these micro carts like Sonic. The Cruze is too plain looking. The new Malibu looks good, but it needs that upcoming new 2.5L four banger and I'm concerned that its new dimensions have taken away pasenger and luggage space. The Camaro looks like someone stepped on it from the rear. The Impala needs to be updated sooner than 2014, but its an alright used car buy. From what I've seen, the 2013 Traverse update will clean it up substantially. The Lambda's are nice vehicles. I go back and forth on the Equinox vs. Terrain, but the updated new 4 cyl engine is needed right now. I suspect the CR differences are either from the small Terrain sample size compared to Equinox, or maybe a greater percentage of Terrains are 6 cylinder models. The next update will probably further improve these vehicle sales numbers. Haven't really liked the Corvette since the 67 model. The Verano looks nice, but I still wonder if it really belongs as a Buick model.
The Caravan was genius.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW