If only the POTUS had such personal power...then we could blame China on Nixon and Clinton, Vietnam on Ike, the current quagmire on Dubya, etc. And no talk about corporate welfare reform. The old Peugeots built in Iran aren't sold in the first world, FWIW.
Seek out an STS-V - much less common, barely more expensive, better equipped and more interesting. Not all GM products of the oughts are lackluster.
GM "Follow as Usual - Chapter 2012" - Malibu launch disappointing...as usual. Lots of Old GM left to burn, I'm afraid. Sales of the 2011 including high fleets seem to remind of the old cool-aid...
That's the problem with GM. It's always the Next Big Thing. And then when that disappoints, it's the Even Next Bigger Thing.
I remember a number of years ago when Rocky (bless his heart; hoping he's doing well) was cheerleading about GM. The Aura was going to be great. The Solstice and Sky were going to knock it out of the park. The newest version of the CTS was going to be the cat's meow. And of course the Volt would slay the Prius.
...only they were all decent to poor.
I'd say the Cruze is probably the only recent vehicle that has truly knocked it out of the park. GM can't afford to keep hitting bunts when they need some Home Runs.
George S. follows disasters and his White House visits are quite common..GM is not a problem in the current political climate for it is totally propped up..It's all status quo until after the election, the Govt is purchasing lots of vehicles, and they pay the big price, helps GM bottom line..
George chases chaos, check his record, makes money off of misery and we are right on the edge of the cliff..the ball has been kicked down the road too many times..GM is just the small player but it will be a loser in the final analysis..Everybody in the world who produces car comes to America and starts up a new assembly plant, floods the market with low-priced junk and offers a lifetime warranty..Who needs a GM product???After owning some 34 of them, I will not buy any nameplate new or used produced after the Government takeover..
Soros is not really interested in the auto game, and he not a believer in our form of constitutional govt and that covers 99% of the WH..IMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Want to watch the start of the "Sprint Cup Race" and will do the last 20 laps, and then some golf viewing in between...
Good Luck with the this GM forum, will be back after election...
I'd say the Cruze is probably the only recent vehicle that has truly knocked it out of the park
Tiong, you're usually tougher on GM than me, but the Cruze a homer? I'll give it a double - decent, OK looks but isn't gonna catch most people's eye, and some teething problems. I do worry that we have weaker automotive engineering in this country than in Japan.
Tiong, you're usually tougher on GM than me, but the Cruze a homer? I'll give it a double - decent, OK looks but isn't gonna catch most people's eye, and some teething problems.
Yesterday, a good friend of mine, who knows absolutely nothing about cars, mentioned he was thinking about buying a new car, and asked my opinion. Hate to say it, but the first thing I blurted out was "Toyota Corolla". And, for someone who's a GM fan (and an even bigger Mopar fan), that's kinda sad, I guess.
But, here's a little background. He's not a car guy at all. Took me forever to explain why my 2000 Park Ave Ultra needs premium, even. He lives in DC, works about 2.5 miles away, usually bikes to work. Has a 1991 or so Corolla wagon that has about 200,000 miles on it, and is just getting old and beat up.
Considering he's had good luck with it (until recently at least), I suggested he get another Corolla. He wants something small-ish that's not too un-wieldy in the city. And, he's only about 6' tall, so it's not like he needs some big mastodon to stretch out in. Also doesn't want anything flashy or extravagant.
Even though the domestics have made some major improvements, if you just want cheap, reliable, and wallflower-ish, I think a Corolla, or Civic, might fit that bill a bit better than a Dart, Cruze, or Focus.
But then, he said he'd be willing to go used, back to maybe 2005 or so. At that point, since he's focusing on cheap, I thought maybe a used Cobalt or Focus might fit the bill. So, hopefully I've redeemed myself somewhat there as pro-domestic. Even the final Neons, IMO, aren't too bad if you can find a nice, unabused one.
If it was for me, I'd have to rule out the Focus and make it either a Cobalt or Neon, but only because I find the Focus short in legroom and uncomfortable for my 36" inseam. In contrast, the Neon and especially the Cobalt were pretty impressive, with regards to legroom.
I do worry that we have weaker automotive engineering in this country than in Japan.
Hate to say it, but I do agree. One thing that disappoints me about the current crop of small cars is that, if fuel economy is your primary concern, you have to go with optional trim levels on the Dart and Cruze (maybe the Focus too) if you want the best fuel economy. But the Civic and Corolla have pretty good economy even in the cheapest trim levels.
Case in point: Dodge Dart. www.fueleconomy.gov is currently showing three powertrain choices: 2.0/auto, 2.0/6-speed, 1.4/6-speed.
Well, the 1.4/6-speed is rated 27/39. But, that's the optional package, and it takes premium. If you just want a cheap car, the 2.0/6-speed is rated at 25/36 and the 2.0/auto, which will probably be the way most of them are equipped, is rated 24/34.
For comparison, a 4-cyl/auto Camry is rated 25/35. The Accord 4/cylauto, currently in its 5th model year and due for an upgrade soon, is 23/34. And the 2013 Altima 4-cyl/auto is rated 27/38!
The Chevy Cruze is equally guilty. The 1.8/auto, again probably the most common configuration, is only rated 22/35. If you spring for the Eco, you'll get 28/42 with the stick, 26/39 with the auto.
I think a lot of the Domestic fuel economy problems are related to them being heavier than their Aisan counterparts.
And, in their defense, the Dart and Cruze feel roomier and more comfy inside to me than the Corolla. Dunno about the Civic, as I haven't sat inside the current generation yet.
I sat in a Dart at the Mopar show in Carlisle PA the other week. I wasn't totally sold on it...when you're used to bigger cars, compacts seem like a bit of a compromise, no matter how nice they are. It was roomy enough up front, and I could even fit in the back seat. But the trunk was small, and the car just seemed to lack the substance of the types of behemoths I've grown accustomed to.
I think that D3 weight disadvantage is because they tend to use less aluminum and high tensile steel (maybe to make up for production overhead and cost disadvantage?).
I've had two Explorer rentals in tha past month. The first was almost new (less than 2K on the odo). Ignoring the ergonomic mess on the dash, it was a decent driving vehicle. The second had around 32K and it already felt tired. Unfortunately, all too often Japanese models seem to age better than domestics. I don't know if that's a factor of materials quality, engineering capability, or both. But based on rentals, I'd say that a domestic is going to start feeling old by warranty expiration, but a Toyota, etc. is going to generally still be tight. Probably why the resale is so much better at trade. Detroit still has some work to do IMO.
Tiong, you're usually tougher on GM than me, but the Cruze a homer? I'll give it a double - decent, OK looks but isn't gonna catch most people's eye, and some teething problems.
Yeah, I was being perhaps a bit charitable. Cruze is a home run compared to any previous GM small car, and has sold pretty well. I didn't want to mention that it still comes in lower vs. the competition in most comparos. But for GM, it's a great effort.
I don't actually think we have weaker engineering, I think we have companies that got complacent without accountability in the management and engineering ranks. EVERYBODY got complacent. Look at Apple - they engineer all of their products and they are generally excellent. When GM wants to stand out as much as Apple does in electronics, then they can do it. But I'm not seeing that level of effort, even vs. Hyundai or Ford.
Don't give Ford too much of a pass - they've got their issues too. My kid just traded an 04 CRV on a Highlander. The CRV had around 100K and was still pretty tight. We have friends with a 4 year old Escape - it's already a rattle trap that looks and feels worn. Speaking of which, I was driving by the Ford dealer and saw some new '13 Escapes. The new ones with leather had a sticker at around $34.5K, close to a Toyota Highlander SE with leather. I think a new Honda CRV EXL with leather stickers around $30K. I'm guessing people that pay that much for the Escape (granted it may have a few more techno doo-dads) are going to be sorry at trade. Seems like GM and Ford both seem to think their new products can command a big premium over market. I can only say, we'll see after the newness wears off. It was interesting that the Toyota dealer offered my kid a 7 yr/100K bumper to bumper extended warranty (from Toyota, not 3rd party) for $1300. Ever price one like that (if you can even get a factory one like that) from D3? That tells me something about projected durability.">
Detroit got bailed out because of jobs and the economy. There are more transplants here now. It's not likely to happen again, so Detroit needs to speed it up. Over priced cars that feel tired after 30 or 40K miles are not the solution.
Seems like GM and Ford both seem to think their new products can command a big premium over market.
My belief is that the recent exhorbatant price increases at both of them are due to the years of losing money. Figure for about 5 years up until CH11, GM hadn't made a yearly profit, they were literally bleeding money. Ford was losing money as well which is my Mullally dumped the PAG and mortgaged everything they could to make it thru the upcoming recession.
Now the both of them are trying to get back on track and the greed is coming back as well. Also, one of them in particular (the Government owned one :P ) is probably trying to raise the funds while they can in case election season doesn't go their way and they are left without a "Safety net" in case things go sour.
I also wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes, corporate jet fleets are back as are the cushy bonuses and golden parachuttes... :lemon:
The continued floundering of the Cadillac badge has put a large strain on some of General Motors’ most impressive U.S.-based gains over the past six months. Sales within GM’s core Chevrolet brand, especially among newly released models, have been rather impressive. The Chevrolet Malibu’s volume is up more than 15% for the first half of the year (thanks to a 32.3% increase in June alongside the new model introduction) and the new compact Chevy Sonic has already sold more than 42,000 units, which is more than double the volume of the car’s predecessor (Chevy Aveo) in the first half of 2011.
Thumbin' through August's Car and Driver at the newsstand. They still pick the Camaro ZL-1 over the 2013 Mustang with more hp and $7K more sticker price.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It's interesting that to my knowledge I've still not seen a Sonic on the road here in Southern California. I've even seen a few Volts. Perhaps it looks so much like something else that I don't notice it?
Since they were available I've seen many here. But they do blend in with some other of the small car group. There are several and I usually can't tell which is which unless I can see the name on the back close enough to read it.
The fact that they fit it is a good thing for Chevy. It shows they are doing things right.
You've seen them, just not noticed. They are very inoffensive looking for a lower line car, a world of difference from the dumpy Aveo. The notchback has a very Mitsubishi look to it, in my eyes.
The weirdo in the lineup now is the Spark, with its dorky anime face.
Divide by two to get prices in US Dollars. The cheapie cars are older models from GM of Europe, but there are some interesting cars there.
The Montana is a subcompact pickup based on the Corsa platform. It has a 1100 lb payload and costs around $15k USD, about half the starting price of an S10.
And yes, they get the new S10, we're stuck with the old Colorado.
Meriva and Zafira are their little vanlets, but they're being replaced with a clone of the Buick Encore (bye Meriva) and a long wheelbase model with 3 rows called the Chevy Spin (bye Zafira).
So GM joined the crossover bandwagon and dropped the wagons and vans.
Captiva is our old Saturn Vue.
Check out the Cruze Sport6, we don't get that 5 door model. The name seems silly given the 5 doors and the 4 cylinders.
Omega is RWD with the 3.6l V6. Basically the new Caprice cop car minus the V8.
Interesting lineup, though, no?
I'd like to see the S10 and Omega make it here, maybe a few others.
Korean companies get a pass because they got gov't money from a country I don't contribute taxes to.
I swore Chrysler would never seen another dollar from me a long time ago, and they went and stole it via the bailouts from my tax contributions. That is thievery, and shall be met with criticism.
Plus, The big 3 haven't impressed me at all with what they have done with the bailiouts.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
But my point was that some slam GM for taking tax dollars but seem to overlook all of the local tax dollars being put into other manufacturers. Government subsidies are government subsidies to my way of thinking.
On one hand you have a subsidy that is a sure bet to fail (example; the predictable stock losses of billions and billions of dollars to bailout GM). You are bailing out a failing company; what can you expect but utter failure?
On the other hand you have a subsidy that is designed to be profitable, provide growth, and additional jobs expanding a healthy company.
It isn't hard to choose the better hand here!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The Omega looks like it shares some DNA with the late Pontiac G8 per the taillamps. I wish they would make a civilian version of the Caprice police car!
Korean companies get a pass because they got gov't money from a country I don't contribute taxes to.
This one cracks me up: Basically, it's fine to buy a foreign vehicle subsidized by their country, but penalize an American company that gets any govt support???
Free trade should be fair trade. I'm tired of the US letting countries like Korea screw over our American companies and cost Americans their jobs due to an unlevel playing field.
I'll agree that state and local gov incentives to transplants are probably generally better spent than federal bailouts. BUT, they are still gov subsidies! You can't have it selectively both ways.
If you look into it, you'll also find that there is considerable economic questioning on whether many of these state and local incentives will really ever pay for themselves.
As for bailing out a failing company, more than a few BK's have restructured quite successfully throughout our history. In the case of GM and C, you can't just look solely at the ultimate stock return. The issue is more macro and analysis needs to consider impacts from prevented job losses (including gov unemployment payouts over time), tax impacts at all gov levels, affects on local economies (e.g. lost sales, lost jobs in other areas from the unemployment reducing their revenues, related taxes, etc.).
As for bailing out a failing company, more than a few BK's have restructured quite successfully throughout our history. In the case of GM and C, you can't just look solely at the ultimate stock return. The issue is more macro and analysis needs to consider impacts from prevented job losses (including gov unemployment payouts over time), tax impacts at all gov levels, affects on local economies (e.g. lost sales, lost jobs in other areas from the unemployment reducing their revenues, related taxes, etc.).
Allow me to respectfully disagree with what I contend is a failed analogy here.
First, all of those other successful companies in BK did BK WITHOUT government intervention. The airlines went through BK and their shareholders and debtholders ate it - they are now leaner and meaner. Same with a lot of other companies. GM was bailed out by the *government* - not a normal BK at all.
Secondly, the GM bailout didn't shed all of the baggage (like the union, the extra divisions, and the dealer contracts) like a normal non-government intervention BK would have.
Lastly, the parts of GM that would have been valuable would have survived - whether as an acquisition by another company, as a new independent but smaller survivor. The parts that were not valuable would have ceased to exist. And those workers would have been assimilating into other companies, including some starting their own fledgling businesses. Those things haven't happened, creative destruction didn't happen, and that's one of the greatest strengths of our system. Like the failed Soviet-era government economies, propping up inefficient noncompetitive industries and companies is a fools game - we all know how well that turned out for Russia and East Germany.
GM is a company with SOME advantages having gone through BK, but they are still walking around with a big boat anchor around their necks as they are too big, have too many dealers, too many noncompetitive vehicles, and have a union ready to pounce when and if they ever start smelling successful.
But in a fairly direct way, your taxes do go there. We've been paying a huge part of their defense bill for only 60 years or so, and throughout the years provided a nice bit of developmental aid as well. Thievery, indeed.
You make the point that local, state, and national governments do get involved in promoting businesses. I've argued here that government should NOT be doing that - they should merely be the referees setting and enforcing equal rules. Why shouldn't governments be involved in the business world?
Because it leads to a power-alliance between the politicians and the wealthy&corporate, where each group benefits the others. Lobbyists and wealthy donors help the politicians get elected with all those associated benefits, and politicians write laws and regulations to protect and strengthen the wealth of the wealthy&corporate. THIS is a TERRIBLE situation for the rest of society.
Whatever short-term damage would have been caused by GM and C going thru a normal bankruptcy, or quick-auction of assets, would be worth the cost to battle the political/wealthy/corporate alliance in this country. A little short-term pain would be better then the path we're on and the economic pain to come in the next few years.
As someone else said - the Soviets didn't do so well with similar economic policies.
I pretty much agrre with you Tiong. The gov prostituted the BK process and didn't take it far enough for political reasons. Bad moves IMHO. But I think timing along with macroeconomics and psychology probably required the gov to save GM at that point in time and that's why both administrations did so. I also think the expansion of transplants makes any second bailout unlikely. The GM turnaround needs some time, as does getting us out of this severe recession. The new 2.5L four banger coming out needs to meet the Japanese 4 bangers. The GM Puegot move seems dumb, but I hope I'm wrong. As for C, I didn't support that bailout, but I have to admit Marchionne seems to be making the right moves. Bottom line, there may be further loans or gov R&D seed money, but I don't think there will be another equity purchase.
I still have a philosophcal difference with some who advocate accepting foreign gov support, but outright oppose the US doing things to help our businesses. That stance seems selfish and against our countries best economic interests to me. I believe every country needs an industrial base for both economic and military survival ans success. I just don't think America remains strong for our kids and grandkids if we don't take care of this area.
The airlines went through BK and their shareholders and debtholders ate it - they are now leaner and meaner.
My sister worked for United and had retired before they went bankrupt a while back. Here you have an industry that's always been heavily subsidized by the taxpayers (check out airport subsidizes sometimes, including mail flights and runway construction, ATCs, etc. And that was before the TSA). When UAL went banko, my sister's retirement was taken over by the Pension Guaranty outfit. United supposedly fully paid into it, but lots of companies weren't current on their premiums when they went banko.
Continental and United merged within the last year or so. The scuttlebutt around the company is that although Continental wound up running the show, they kept the United name since Continental already went through three bankruptcies, while UAL only has one under their belt. So a judge is less likely to view a future Chapter 11 unfavorably and liquidate them.
We may get a fresh look at airline bankruptcies and government intervention in the near future as American continues to perform poorly. Second quarter revenue was up, but fuel prices look to be climbing. That'll hurt them, and GM's truck/SUV sales.
Failure is failure. Accept it or be doomed to repeat it
That's kind of a negative attitude isn't it? Failure can also be a learning experience and lead to greater things in the future. Look at Steve Jobs. Many companies go on to success after a BK, just as many students are not doomed to fail because they got a F in a class. I didn't like some of the politics in the GM BK, but realistically the gov had to bail them out. I don't like gov involvement in company equity matters, but the money was too big for the country's financial status at the time, so guaranteed loans weren't going to be an answer. I don't think anyone was going to take over much of GM because it was filled with many old facilities and liabilities in predominantly union locations. Transplants at the time were not nearly large enough to provide market resolution at that point and that is a big reason for the industry support of a GM bailout - subs would start failing that others also relied upon. As for the banks, if it was really that easy how come nobody took over Lehman? America and Americans need to start getting serious about our industrial base or our kids and grandkids will be the ones "doomed" down the road.
I'm amazed at how some gloat at the problems GM has and some whine about what was done. I plan to voice my opinion on the politics involved in November. The UAW could have been left out of being given bonuses and safety in the deal since they were unions and leaned one way politically while the bondholders in pension funds and 401k's lost out. I thought bondholders were ahead of workers and common stock owner. I agree with keeping the ancillary suppliers and businesses going during the depression caused by the mortgage bloat. The loss of many of those would have affected all the foreign company builders who had plants here.
The video of the current senator taking credit for "saving" GM is at the bottom of this fairly neutral article in the Plain Dealer. The video is a hoot.
My sister worked for United and had retired before they went bankrupt a while back. Here you have an industry that's always been heavily subsidized by the taxpayers (check out airport subsidizes sometimes, including mail flights and runway construction, ATCs, etc. And that was before the TSA).
Pretty similar to the interstates being built which subsidized the growth of the auto industry.
Seems like pensions partially evaporating is not unlike 401K's dropping 50%. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Seems like pensions partially evaporating is not unlike 401K's dropping 50%. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
I wonder if, in this day and age, a 401k might actually be a better bet than a pension? With a pension, they might tell you what you're going to get when you retire, and make all sorts of empty promises, but that can always change, and you have no control over it.
At least with a 401k, when the market tanks and you lose half of your value, if you just ride it out and don't panic, you'll probably gain that money back. And if you're diversified and rebalance when necessary, you should actually come out ahead.
Why should we support a failed business model? In cars or in banks?
You have to look at why they failed.
Banks failed because banks took stupid risks.
GM failed because banks took stupid risks.
The market takes a nose dive and suddenly the auto market goes from 17M to 12M vehicles overnight, and it's not even GM's fault.
Nobody was lending (plus nobody was buying) so there was suddenly all this excess capacity. It's much harder for a large company to shrink suddenly like that. Impossible, even.
The crutch they got helped them through tough times not caused by them and now sales have crept back and look promising.
Budweiser is owned by Ambev. Coors by Molsen. Miller by South African Breweries. There's no major American beer. Think about it.
GM is still American. That should mean something.
I bet Chery or JAC would have stepped in and stole left over assets cheap, and laid everyone off.
Chery and JAC have invaded the Brazilian market, and it's scary. I even saw a poorly done RAV4 clone there. It's criminal ... I don't know how they allow that, when Toyota even has manufacturing plants in Brazil and provides good jobs to thousands of Brazilians.
I guess they Chery bribed the right politicians.
Unethical companies could be the ones who will take advantage of the opportunity to buy distressed assets like GM at the time. The bailout prevented that here.
This is also why there's a battle to keep the wrong people from buying rights to Saab. They would steal a lot of GM's intellectual property (Saab 9-4x, Epsilon, 2.8T, etc).
Oh please, they failed because they couldnt make cars that compete well with the competition. Why do you think there are so many honda/toyota/hyundais (feel free to add others) running around?
They only looked at profit, and as a company you should, but betting the farm on trucks/suv's that are very profitable wasnt a great move, and it isnt like gas went from $1 to $3-4 overnight, yes it did go up fast, nobody but the gas companies are happy about that.
They never took the small car seriously until recently, and who has many years, decades even building small cars people want? The japanese/koreans/germans.
They may be making good small cars now, I dont know, but until they pay us taxpayers back (yeah right...I didnt get to vote on it, it would've been NO) they will not be on my shopping list.
They may be making good small cars now, I dont know, but until they pay us taxpayers back (yeah right...I didnt get to vote on it, it would'be been NO) they will not be on my shopping list.
I'm not overly joyed at the fact that GM and Chrysler had to be bailed out by the US government. However, to be fair, don't the Japanese and Korean auto makers get an awful lot of help from their respective governments? If so, then it's almost obligatory that our government help out GM/Ford/Chrysler, just to keep the playing field level!
They never could make money on a small car. Or a small car everyone wanted.
Again, why do you think others gained where they couldnt? I'm no fan of hyundai, but this upstart only what 25 years ago took how many potential sales from everyone, including gm?
They had blinders of some kind on, then, heres an idea, lets fly our company jet to DC and beg for money.....the idiocy.....and to think we gave them money just makes me sick.
Comments
Seek out an STS-V - much less common, barely more expensive, better equipped and more interesting. Not all GM products of the oughts are lackluster.
Malibu Eco the most disliked car from the first half of 2012
Regards,
OW
That's the problem with GM. It's always the Next Big Thing. And then when that disappoints, it's the Even Next Bigger Thing.
I remember a number of years ago when Rocky (bless his heart; hoping he's doing well) was cheerleading about GM. The Aura was going to be great. The Solstice and Sky were going to knock it out of the park. The newest version of the CTS was going to be the cat's meow. And of course the Volt would slay the Prius.
...only they were all decent to poor.
I'd say the Cruze is probably the only recent vehicle that has truly knocked it out of the park. GM can't afford to keep hitting bunts when they need some Home Runs.
George chases chaos, check his record, makes money off of misery and we are right on the edge of the cliff..the ball has been kicked down the road too many times..GM is just the small player but it will be a loser in the final analysis..Everybody in the world who produces car comes to America and starts up a new assembly plant, floods the market with low-priced junk and offers a lifetime warranty..Who needs a GM product???After owning some 34 of them, I will not buy any nameplate new or used produced after the Government takeover..
Soros is not really interested in the auto game, and he not a believer in our form of constitutional govt and that covers 99% of the WH..IMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Want to watch the start of the "Sprint Cup Race" and will do the last 20 laps, and then some golf viewing in between...
Good Luck with the this GM forum, will be back after election...
Tiong, you're usually tougher on GM than me, but the Cruze a homer? I'll give it a double - decent, OK looks but isn't gonna catch most people's eye, and some teething problems. I do worry that we have weaker automotive engineering in this country than in Japan.
Yesterday, a good friend of mine, who knows absolutely nothing about cars, mentioned he was thinking about buying a new car, and asked my opinion. Hate to say it, but the first thing I blurted out was "Toyota Corolla". And, for someone who's a GM fan (and an even bigger Mopar fan), that's kinda sad, I guess.
But, here's a little background. He's not a car guy at all. Took me forever to explain why my 2000 Park Ave Ultra needs premium, even. He lives in DC, works about 2.5 miles away, usually bikes to work. Has a 1991 or so Corolla wagon that has about 200,000 miles on it, and is just getting old and beat up.
Considering he's had good luck with it (until recently at least), I suggested he get another Corolla. He wants something small-ish that's not too un-wieldy in the city. And, he's only about 6' tall, so it's not like he needs some big mastodon to stretch out in. Also doesn't want anything flashy or extravagant.
Even though the domestics have made some major improvements, if you just want cheap, reliable, and wallflower-ish, I think a Corolla, or Civic, might fit that bill a bit better than a Dart, Cruze, or Focus.
But then, he said he'd be willing to go used, back to maybe 2005 or so. At that point, since he's focusing on cheap, I thought maybe a used Cobalt or Focus might fit the bill. So, hopefully I've redeemed myself somewhat there as pro-domestic. Even the final Neons, IMO, aren't too bad if you can find a nice, unabused one.
If it was for me, I'd have to rule out the Focus and make it either a Cobalt or Neon, but only because I find the Focus short in legroom and uncomfortable for my 36" inseam. In contrast, the Neon and especially the Cobalt were pretty impressive, with regards to legroom.
I do worry that we have weaker automotive engineering in this country than in Japan.
Hate to say it, but I do agree. One thing that disappoints me about the current crop of small cars is that, if fuel economy is your primary concern, you have to go with optional trim levels on the Dart and Cruze (maybe the Focus too) if you want the best fuel economy. But the Civic and Corolla have pretty good economy even in the cheapest trim levels.
Case in point: Dodge Dart. www.fueleconomy.gov is currently showing three powertrain choices: 2.0/auto, 2.0/6-speed, 1.4/6-speed.
Well, the 1.4/6-speed is rated 27/39. But, that's the optional package, and it takes premium. If you just want a cheap car, the 2.0/6-speed is rated at 25/36 and the 2.0/auto, which will probably be the way most of them are equipped, is rated 24/34.
For comparison, a 4-cyl/auto Camry is rated 25/35. The Accord 4/cylauto, currently in its 5th model year and due for an upgrade soon, is 23/34. And the 2013 Altima 4-cyl/auto is rated 27/38!
The Chevy Cruze is equally guilty. The 1.8/auto, again probably the most common configuration, is only rated 22/35. If you spring for the Eco, you'll get 28/42 with the stick, 26/39 with the auto.
Another factor is Toyota's transmission logic is heavily geared toward FE. It's very bothersome to some.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
And, in their defense, the Dart and Cruze feel roomier and more comfy inside to me than the Corolla. Dunno about the Civic, as I haven't sat inside the current generation yet.
I sat in a Dart at the Mopar show in Carlisle PA the other week. I wasn't totally sold on it...when you're used to bigger cars, compacts seem like a bit of a compromise, no matter how nice they are. It was roomy enough up front, and I could even fit in the back seat. But the trunk was small, and the car just seemed to lack the substance of the types of behemoths I've grown accustomed to.
I've had two Explorer rentals in tha past month. The first was almost new (less than 2K on the odo). Ignoring the ergonomic mess on the dash, it was a decent driving vehicle. The second had around 32K and it already felt tired. Unfortunately, all too often Japanese models seem to age better than domestics. I don't know if that's a factor of materials quality, engineering capability, or both. But based on rentals, I'd say that a domestic is going to start feeling old by warranty expiration, but a Toyota, etc. is going to generally still be tight. Probably why the resale is so much better at trade. Detroit still has some work to do IMO.
Yeah, I was being perhaps a bit charitable. Cruze is a home run compared to any previous GM small car, and has sold pretty well. I didn't want to mention that it still comes in lower vs. the competition in most comparos. But for GM, it's a great effort.
I don't actually think we have weaker engineering, I think we have companies that got complacent without accountability in the management and engineering ranks. EVERYBODY got complacent. Look at Apple - they engineer all of their products and they are generally excellent. When GM wants to stand out as much as Apple does in electronics, then they can do it. But I'm not seeing that level of effort, even vs. Hyundai or Ford.
Detroit got bailed out because of jobs and the economy. There are more transplants here now. It's not likely to happen again, so Detroit needs to speed it up. Over priced cars that feel tired after 30 or 40K miles are not the solution.
My belief is that the recent exhorbatant price increases at both of them are due to the years of losing money. Figure for about 5 years up until CH11, GM hadn't made a yearly profit, they were literally bleeding money. Ford was losing money as well which is my Mullally dumped the PAG and mortgaged everything they could to make it thru the upcoming recession.
Now the both of them are trying to get back on track and the greed is coming back as well. Also, one of them in particular (the Government owned one :P ) is probably trying to raise the funds while they can in case election season doesn't go their way and they are left without a "Safety net" in case things go sour.
I also wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes, corporate jet fleets are back as are the cushy bonuses and golden parachuttes... :lemon:
The continued floundering of the Cadillac badge has put a large strain on some of General Motors’ most impressive U.S.-based gains over the past six months. Sales within GM’s core Chevrolet brand, especially among newly released models, have been rather impressive. The Chevrolet Malibu’s volume is up more than 15% for the first half of the year (thanks to a 32.3% increase in June alongside the new model introduction) and the new compact Chevy Sonic has already sold more than 42,000 units, which is more than double the volume of the car’s predecessor (Chevy Aveo) in the first half of 2011.
United States Sales Volume, H1 2012 vs. H1 2011
CTS: -5.6%
Escalade: -9.3%
SRX: -2.9%
Regards,
OW
Since they were available I've seen many here. But they do blend in with some other of the small car group. There are several and I usually can't tell which is which unless I can see the name on the back close enough to read it.
The fact that they fit it is a good thing for Chevy. It shows they are doing things right.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The weirdo in the lineup now is the Spark, with its dorky anime face.
Regards,
OW
Look again, you can get one for *much* less than that. Under $900 when I checked for the Sienna.
Unreal. They must lose money on those.
http://www.chevrolet.com.br/veiculos/todos-os-modelos.html
Divide by two to get prices in US Dollars. The cheapie cars are older models from GM of Europe, but there are some interesting cars there.
The Montana is a subcompact pickup based on the Corsa platform. It has a 1100 lb payload and costs around $15k USD, about half the starting price of an S10.
And yes, they get the new S10, we're stuck with the old Colorado.
Meriva and Zafira are their little vanlets, but they're being replaced with a clone of the Buick Encore (bye Meriva) and a long wheelbase model with 3 rows called the Chevy Spin (bye Zafira).
So GM joined the crossover bandwagon and dropped the wagons and vans.
Captiva is our old Saturn Vue.
Check out the Cruze Sport6, we don't get that 5 door model. The name seems silly given the 5 doors and the 4 cylinders.
Omega is RWD with the 3.6l V6. Basically the new Caprice cop car minus the V8.
Interesting lineup, though, no?
I'd like to see the S10 and Omega make it here, maybe a few others.
I swore Chrysler would never seen another dollar from me a long time ago, and they went and stole it via the bailouts from my tax contributions. That is thievery, and shall be met with criticism.
Plus, The big 3 haven't impressed me at all with what they have done with the bailiouts.
Kind of like HARP 2.0 and upcoming Harp 3.0 for mortgage lending?
Apparently, the gov't can't do anything right without several attempts.
I suppose a 3rd bailout for Chrsyler is looming too.
On one hand you have a subsidy that is a sure bet to fail (example; the predictable stock losses of billions and billions of dollars to bailout GM). You are bailing out a failing company; what can you expect but utter failure?
On the other hand you have a subsidy that is designed to be profitable, provide growth, and additional jobs expanding a healthy company.
It isn't hard to choose the better hand here!
This one cracks me up: Basically, it's fine to buy a foreign vehicle subsidized by their country, but penalize an American company that gets any govt support???
Free trade should be fair trade. I'm tired of the US letting countries like Korea screw over our American companies and cost Americans their jobs due to an unlevel playing field.
If you look into it, you'll also find that there is considerable economic questioning on whether many of these state and local incentives will really ever pay for themselves.
As for bailing out a failing company, more than a few BK's have restructured quite successfully throughout our history. In the case of GM and C, you can't just look solely at the ultimate stock return. The issue is more macro and analysis needs to consider impacts from prevented job losses (including gov unemployment payouts over time), tax impacts at all gov levels, affects on local economies (e.g. lost sales, lost jobs in other areas from the unemployment reducing their revenues, related taxes, etc.).
Allow me to respectfully disagree with what I contend is a failed analogy here.
First, all of those other successful companies in BK did BK WITHOUT government intervention. The airlines went through BK and their shareholders and debtholders ate it - they are now leaner and meaner. Same with a lot of other companies. GM was bailed out by the *government* - not a normal BK at all.
Secondly, the GM bailout didn't shed all of the baggage (like the union, the extra divisions, and the dealer contracts) like a normal non-government intervention BK would have.
Lastly, the parts of GM that would have been valuable would have survived - whether as an acquisition by another company, as a new independent but smaller survivor. The parts that were not valuable would have ceased to exist. And those workers would have been assimilating into other companies, including some starting their own fledgling businesses. Those things haven't happened, creative destruction didn't happen, and that's one of the greatest strengths of our system. Like the failed Soviet-era government economies, propping up inefficient noncompetitive industries and companies is a fools game - we all know how well that turned out for Russia and East Germany.
GM is a company with SOME advantages having gone through BK, but they are still walking around with a big boat anchor around their necks as they are too big, have too many dealers, too many noncompetitive vehicles, and have a union ready to pounce when and if they ever start smelling successful.
How about also looking at and considering MORAL HAZARD, and car companies that believe they are TOO BIG to fail.
It would be nice to see GM stock rise to a point where the Fed can at least break even. Just don't repeat the mistakes from the past.
I was pro-bailout, BTW.
Because it leads to a power-alliance between the politicians and the wealthy&corporate, where each group benefits the others. Lobbyists and wealthy donors help the politicians get elected with all those associated benefits, and politicians write laws and regulations to protect and strengthen the wealth of the wealthy&corporate. THIS is a TERRIBLE situation for the rest of society.
Whatever short-term damage would have been caused by GM and C going thru a normal bankruptcy, or quick-auction of assets, would be worth the cost to battle the political/wealthy/corporate alliance in this country. A little short-term pain would be better then the path we're on and the economic pain to come in the next few years.
As someone else said - the Soviets didn't do so well with similar economic policies.
I still have a philosophcal difference with some who advocate accepting foreign gov support, but outright oppose the US doing things to help our businesses. That stance seems selfish and against our countries best economic interests to me. I believe every country needs an industrial base for both economic and military survival ans success. I just don't think America remains strong for our kids and grandkids if we don't take care of this area.
WTF is going on around here? GM should be a new company without a G or M in it's name. Same with JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America.
Failure is failure. Accept it or be doomed to repeat it.
Regards,
OW
My sister worked for United and had retired before they went bankrupt a while back. Here you have an industry that's always been heavily subsidized by the taxpayers (check out airport subsidizes sometimes, including mail flights and runway construction, ATCs, etc. And that was before the TSA). When UAL went banko, my sister's retirement was taken over by the Pension Guaranty outfit. United supposedly fully paid into it, but lots of companies weren't current on their premiums when they went banko.
Continental and United merged within the last year or so. The scuttlebutt around the company is that although Continental wound up running the show, they kept the United name since Continental already went through three bankruptcies, while UAL only has one under their belt. So a judge is less likely to view a future Chapter 11 unfavorably and liquidate them.
We may get a fresh look at airline bankruptcies and government intervention in the near future as American continues to perform poorly. Second quarter revenue was up, but fuel prices look to be climbing. That'll hurt them, and GM's truck/SUV sales.
That's kind of a negative attitude isn't it? Failure can also be a learning experience and lead to greater things in the future. Look at Steve Jobs. Many companies go on to success after a BK, just as many students are not doomed to fail because they got a F in a class. I didn't like some of the politics in the GM BK, but realistically the gov had to bail them out. I don't like gov involvement in company equity matters, but the money was too big for the country's financial status at the time, so guaranteed loans weren't going to be an answer. I don't think anyone was going to take over much of GM because it was filled with many old facilities and liabilities in predominantly union locations. Transplants at the time were not nearly large enough to provide market resolution at that point and that is a big reason for the industry support of a GM bailout - subs would start failing that others also relied upon. As for the banks, if it was really that easy how come nobody took over Lehman? America and Americans need to start getting serious about our industrial base or our kids and grandkids will be the ones "doomed" down the road.
I'm amazed at how some gloat at the problems GM has and some whine about what was done. I plan to voice my opinion on the politics involved in November. The UAW could have been left out of being given bonuses and safety in the deal since they were unions and leaned one way politically while the bondholders in pension funds and 401k's lost out. I thought bondholders were ahead of workers and common stock owner. I agree with keeping the ancillary suppliers and businesses going during the depression caused by the mortgage bloat. The loss of many of those would have affected all the foreign company builders who had plants here.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Video, I hope it works:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/ettjF5iOc4E
Link to article:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/07/sen_sherrod_brown_kicks_the_wr.h- tml
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Pretty similar to the interstates being built which subsidized the growth of the auto industry.
Seems like pensions partially evaporating is not unlike 401K's dropping 50%. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
I wonder if, in this day and age, a 401k might actually be a better bet than a pension? With a pension, they might tell you what you're going to get when you retire, and make all sorts of empty promises, but that can always change, and you have no control over it.
At least with a 401k, when the market tanks and you lose half of your value, if you just ride it out and don't panic, you'll probably gain that money back. And if you're diversified and rebalance when necessary, you should actually come out ahead.
You have to look at why they failed.
Banks failed because banks took stupid risks.
GM failed because banks took stupid risks.
The market takes a nose dive and suddenly the auto market goes from 17M to 12M vehicles overnight, and it's not even GM's fault.
Nobody was lending (plus nobody was buying) so there was suddenly all this excess capacity. It's much harder for a large company to shrink suddenly like that. Impossible, even.
The crutch they got helped them through tough times not caused by them and now sales have crept back and look promising.
Budweiser is owned by Ambev. Coors by Molsen. Miller by South African Breweries. There's no major American beer. Think about it.
GM is still American. That should mean something.
I bet Chery or JAC would have stepped in and stole left over assets cheap, and laid everyone off.
Imagine the Chery Corvette.
Thanks for your good post.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I guess they Chery bribed the right politicians.
Unethical companies could be the ones who will take advantage of the opportunity to buy distressed assets like GM at the time. The bailout prevented that here.
This is also why there's a battle to keep the wrong people from buying rights to Saab. They would steal a lot of GM's intellectual property (Saab 9-4x, Epsilon, 2.8T, etc).
They only looked at profit, and as a company you should, but betting the farm on trucks/suv's that are very profitable wasnt a great move, and it isnt like gas went from $1 to $3-4 overnight, yes it did go up fast, nobody but the gas companies are happy about that.
They never took the small car seriously until recently, and who has many years, decades even building small cars people want? The japanese/koreans/germans.
They may be making good small cars now, I dont know, but until they pay us taxpayers back (yeah right...I didnt get to vote on it, it would've been NO) they will not be on my shopping list.
The failure was temporary and primarily market driven.
Not that there wasn't (and still is) room for improvement.
I'm not overly joyed at the fact that GM and Chrysler had to be bailed out by the US government. However, to be fair, don't the Japanese and Korean auto makers get an awful lot of help from their respective governments? If so, then it's almost obligatory that our government help out GM/Ford/Chrysler, just to keep the playing field level!
URL if you can't see the image above:
http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/01/M-US-vehicle-sales-chart.png
Before you even say "Ford" remember they had to sell the shirt off their back (Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover), all at huge losses.
They never could make money on a small car. Or a small car everyone wanted.
Again, why do you think others gained where they couldnt? I'm no fan of hyundai, but this upstart only what 25 years ago took how many potential sales from everyone, including gm?
They had blinders of some kind on, then, heres an idea, lets fly our company jet to DC and beg for money.....the idiocy.....and to think we gave them money just makes me sick.