Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
You really need to consider that they aren't both equally fine. Why? While they both might help create jobs here, the government colecting $ to subsidize those companies that they like because of the political donations and such, leads to crrouption. $$ corrupts absolutely. We need to remove the $$ that government controls, reduce their power and influence in our lives. They should be like sports commissioners and game-officials: setting and enforcing rules, not deciding who can have an extra man on the court, or otherwise intentionally changing the game.
I would strongly suggest that not doing business with subsidized companies and countries that do such is FAR better than giving our government $$ and then deciding who of their friends on Wall Street, the Banks, or the D3 are "worth" saving.
If Korea subsidizes Kia and Hyundai shut them down and withdraw our troops from Korea. Let Korea put their $ towards the extra defense they're going to need.
Same goes for any of these other pencil-neck countries. We don't need them, half as much as they need us.
Regards,
OW
Nice business model GM maintained.
Regards,
OW
I completely agree about your last two thoughts. Its a lot easier to devote resources to making "better products" (as some would say) when someone else is wearing the pants. All of this needs to be taken into account.
Business models don't matter when someone else does the dirty work.
All I see is hypocrisy.
That's what we say when we look at GM's product portfolio.
All I see is hypocrisy.
That's what we say when we look at GM's executive management.
:shades:
Treasury spokesman Matt Anderson said the costs were still far less than some predicted.
"The auto industry rescue helped save more than one million jobs throughout our nation's industrial heartland and is expected to cost far less than many had feared during the height of the crisis," Anderson said."
Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout (Detroit News)
But it appears the loan has now turned from "emergency fund" into "play money"... :sick:
Anyway - sure I trust their other analysis, seeing how frequently they are wrong. I'm sure that if GM didn't make vehicles, no other company could step in and supply the market.
Thank you Treasury for the systemic-propoganda.
The problem is that most people do not believe a level playing field was or is the problem for GM. Most people believe the problem at GM, is GM itself.
It was and is the product, stupid!
It was and still remains the overpaid workers, stupid!
It was and still remains the frequent bonuses, stupid!
It was and still is the high warranty costs due to poor reliabiity, stupid!
4 Books of the future!
Amen! I agree 100% completely.
The worst part of the auto industry bailout is that we bailed out the two worst poor performings sacks of incompetence the world has ever seen in 2 companies. Chrysler and GM deserved to go bankrupt and disappear.
To those that say the Gov't needs to help our industries to "level the playing field," then how about eliminating GM and Chrysler, throw out all the old workers, and bring in an all new company called Amtrak Motors or US Postal Service Mobiles to take over with all new people?
Oh wait, that's what we did (called it Govt' motors), but we only went in about 5% when we should have gone all in (and thrown all the incompetents out). With a 100% change in personnel, a new name, and a new company, perhaps things would have worked. It would have also helped cure the ill will and bad reputation of GM & Chrysler. Why save 2 companies that worked so hard to build ill will from so much of the buying public over decades and decades, and worked extremely hard it seems to build up a bad reputation for reliability.
Reminds me of this lousy taco shop near my home. They seem to go "out of business" about once every 18 months. They inevitably change the name, perhaps repaint it a bit (with different lipstick) and serve the same lame food. I went twice to two different named taco shops; realized both were equally lousy and showed no improvement or change in food quality, and never went back again to be fooled a 3rd time. I've been in San Diego for 10 years now so I think they've had about 7 name changes. It's their MO that's the problem.
You know, you really aren't far off, and both the folks in your area and in mine would probably support a "P&G" bailout. I see logging trucks around here all the time but the mills are slowly closing. Sawmills and pulp mills both. And it's not because the trees have all been logged off either. There was a mill over in the Western UP that was functional and even profitable but it got sold to a bigger outfit who shut it down to prop up paper prices and they sold the tooling to China (I assume) and sold the building for scrap.
My brother in law lives in the center of the central valley in farm country where the Big 3 are very popular even in CA. He was a big GM fan when I first met him.
He bought a Chevy Tahoe.
He married, had (or was planning on having at the time) a couple kids, and liked the size and comfort, so he chose the Tahoe years ago. At around 3 years and 30K miles I asked him how he liked it. He said it was fine and that GM's weren't as bad as some made them out to be.
A few years later he's around 65K miles and I ask him again, and he's like GM engines are good, but the rest is pretty shoddy and shabby and starts falling apart at 60,000 miles.
They are now currently commuting around town in an extended cab Toyota Tundra. Somehow, when 60-70K miles comes around, I'll bet a month's salary it doesn't start to fall apart, and I'll bet another months salary GM's lost a customer for life when that happens, and he realizes what junk he's been buying his whole life up until recently.
The predictors can take their predictions and shove them up their you know whats.
The only prediction I made was that bailing out GM was a loser thing to do with a loser mentality, and that it would lose money.
Whether that's 1% or 100%, it doesn't matter, it's a losing proposition. We'd of been better off as taxpayers putting all that money in a BofA savings account paying what, .1% right now? .1% is better than "losses" of any kind.
Best part of that article from the Detroit News:
Taxpayers incurred a $1.3 billion loss on the $12.5 billion bailout of Chrysler.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120813/AUTO01/208130392#ixzz23XFKvXO7
By my calcuations that's a tad over 10% losses on billions and billions of dollars. So much for the "they paid it all back" mantra of bailout supporters.
I'm not but it seems like the time value of money mostly keeps decreasing (compound interest at 0% violates all the "rules of 7"). So the auto bailout was expensive but only in terms of four year old dollars. Better to pay then than now. And if GM and Chrysler had gone though a "normal" Chapter 11 but without post-bankruptcy financing lined up, they could still be crippled. Or worse, gone, with all the ensuing jobs.
$1.3 billion is a lot of money. But compared to what?
Of course the fallacy is that we should have paid AT ALL.
Here's one way to look at it; let's factor in opportunity cost. Find out what stock was the single best performer since 2009 (the last 3 years). Put your 1.3 billion in that ultra super performing stock back then (go back in time) and take it out right now.
What do you have?
We can start with Solyndra, $500 billion that put the the taxpayer money at risk ahead of the actual investors. They get their money back and the US loses all of my tax money?
We can go through a whole bunch of "investments" typically "green" and see that keeping a US company going is far better than having more foreign taco stands set up business.
BTW, I was told one reason mom and pop type restaurants change so often is one person comes to US, gets a small business loan to start the restaurant. After a certain period of time, they can just dissolve the business, I'm guessing without paying back the small business loan. Then they "sell" the business to the next relative/friend new here and needing to start a business to get some "free" money, and the second group gets a smallb business load. This continues on, usw.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think that's called "Armchair quarterbacking" or "hindsight is 20/20". FWIW, if you had taken that $1.3B and put it into Apple stock, it would now be worth about $9.1B. And, now it would be paying out around $153M per year in dividends.
More to the point, this is why the government shouldn't be propping up companies.
You have to be pretty hypocritical to say giving tax $$$ to Solyndra is any different tan GM or Chrysler.
The end result is that our tax $$$ are funneled into organizations by elected/non-elected personnel, and as a result, winners and losers arrive at their destinations not by their own means, but by unfair... sometimes, no competition.
The fact that Solyndra went under doesn't differentiate it in the least from GM. GM's still in play, and it may very well end up just like Solyndra.
It doesn't really make a difference to the folks in DC, it's not their money.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's why they're so happy to give it away. And why we should be so pissed off about it, and vocal in our opposition of them giving away our money on their behalf.
How would YOU live if someone else was paying your bills?
Personally, I'd be living in the nicest house in town and driving much more expensive automobiles. So would all of my "friends".
I'm betting everyone else would do the same exact thing, too!
Maybe not at the very beginning, but eventually...
That's the single best justification for limiting the time politicians and appointees serve in government. They're no different than us in that regard... Maybe worse.
I'd start by telling them to stop paying my bills, I can take care of them myself quite well thank you.
Things like that generally don't come without strings. Sometimes they're big Volt-shaped strings.
I don't want a government that gives $ to Solyndras, GM's and Chrysler's, farmers (do they give extra $ to the Treasury in good crop years?), banks, Wall St, insurance companies, Boeing, Halliburton, ...
The collection of $ from the citizens of the U.S. , and the power that this redistribution gives the politicans, and corporate owners is the ROOT of 99.9% of our problems. $$ corrupts. We need to eliminate the INTERaction of business and government. Government should be the officials like in a basketball game. They should not allow 1 team to have 6 players on the court, they should not be in a team locker-room, and they shouldn't be out drinking and eating with the team or coaches after the game. The teams should not "donate" to keep the officials employed. This is pretty common sense stuff, that we seem to just ignore when we allow business and government to "play" together.
You are being taken for a fool if you believe the stories of the people involved in these business-government dealings, who are as biased as they come because they all benefit from the $$. How many Cheney's (Halliburton), John Edwards, Al Gore, UAW, GM execs, Wall Street execs. do you need exposed as $$-grubbing liars and cheats, before you wake up and realize the problem is - we voluntarily vote for and give these folks more and more $$, to benefit themselves (financially, or with voters) and their business friends.
Let's also remember, for the records, that if Solyndra would have been given a bailout ala GM, they'd still be in business and likely for longer than GM will be.
Solyndra went under because they weren't bailed out, and GM was.
500 million = 0.5 billion by the way.
Pontiacdealer and he pretty much had the same summary of GM trucks as your friend did. Engines were durable, the diesels before the Duramax (designed by Isuzu btw) were complete garbage. Some of the transmissions were durable while others were undersized for the application and prone to breakage quite easily. The Interiors were low grade and deteriorated easily, the leather seats didn't wear well either and the electricals (blown headlights anyone?) such as ABS systems and emisions systems. The whole saying "I'd rather push a Chevy than Drive a Ford" has lots of merit...He was actually a double victim of a piar of GMC Sierra pickups during his time there. One was lemon lawed and the other was sold cheap (i.e. dumped) to a co-worker in the shop. Both were only a year or so old and still under warranty.
Sad, and quite amazing really because even with all the problems he was a manager so he had access to all the tools, parts and help he could get to fix them and, they weren't even close to being out of warranty, yet he still got rid of both of them and vowed never to buy another.
He instead, bought a loaded Tundra... One of the very first builds and he still has it. I think it's got something like 150k on it and although I haven't seen him in person in a while, he still hasn't told me about any problems that have come up. His wife also traded her 8mpg Suburban School Bus (that had an appetite for Intermediate Steeering Shafts) for a Highlander which she is also driving still...
Shoot, that Tundra probably has more than 3X the miles than both of his Sierra's combined and yet the thing still hasn't had anything other than routine maintainence. I'm not much of a full size truck guy myself, but I'd check out the Texas built Tundra if I were buying. :shades:
Problem is, the lure eventually overwhelms even the most honest person.
I think a lot of folks that go to Congress are honorable, trustworthy individuals that really want to make a difference. They just aren't any challenge to an institution formed over 200 years ago that has imbedded generations of conditions into itself so as to give it an almost "royal and regal" status.
If they work for us, then why are they treated (by us AND themselves) as our superiors?
The answer is clear... We work for them. We don't have any real choices.
In an old Simpsons episode, 2 space aliens, Kang and Kodos, who are exactly the same, dress up and run for president. IIRC, Kang wins and everyone is put "under the lash". When someone's says something to Homer about it, he replies "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".... Who , if elected, would have done the very same exact thing to the population.
That's too close to reality for many to accept...
No manufacturer is immune to problems...
amen
Naaah. The foreign brands have always been so much better built and much more reliable than the US brands. That's all we've heard for decades. I know someone who had a 1963 Suburban that had a rear differential go out. They just ain't no good building them at GM.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It doesn't matter to me if they really are. They're just so (censored) ugly and bland! It's like your Mom wanting to hook you up on a date with her best friend's daughter. "What's she like, Mom?" "Well, she's got a nice personality and she's a good cook!" Translation: "She's uglier than a mule's butt and weighs a metric ton!"
Amen, Bro.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Somehow I don't think the Tundra rust issue is a wide spread enough issue to worry about, and for the most part, I hear great things about Toyota's customer service. Can't say the same for GM's customer service. Also, saying they don't owe obligations or even lawsuits the "old" GM owed? That's a copout.
His is a 2007 model with the I-force 5.7 and I don't know what condition the frame is in but I think he has the underbody coated for our New England Winters... something that he also did for the Sierras (trust me, this guy takes meticulous care of his things, you should see his prepwork for getting his sleds ready for the trails!)
Of course it isn't unless you have a 6 year old Toyota truck's engine mount suddenly fail due to rust resulting in the engine dropping while traveling on the highway; or having a mechanic tell you your 8-10 year old Toyota truck is unsafe to drive due to potential catastrophic failure of suspension parts attached to your frame.
another Toyota rust recall. This one sounds fishy:
Rav 4 rust recall
Dysfunctional management at it's best....that's why it took so long. No other explanation.
Regards,
OW
"Someone" recently here again alluded to GM not being responsible for issues in "The Old GM". I believe that as a previous AND current GM customer, I can speak with more authority on this than 90% of people who routinely post here. I received a letter a few weeks back telling me that GM was warrantying the ignition lock on my '08 Cobalt for 10 years or 120K miles as some were having trouble with the key being hard to turn or in more extreme cases, the key being difficult to remove. Yes, this is not a recall but an offer made by the new GM, to goodwill something made by the old GM.
BTW, my Cobalt does not have the issue.
My '85 Silverado actually has that issue. But, after 27 years, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it. :P
Speaking at an employee meeting, CEO Dan Akerson said the company, Newark, Calif.-based Envia Systems, has made a huge breakthrough in the amount of energy a lithium-ion battery can hold. GM is sure that the battery will be able to take a car 100 miles within a couple of years, he said. It could be double that with some luck, he said."
GM may have electric car breakthrough (Detroit News)
I just don't think performance-oriented cars should be 4-door versions only.
Can you imagine a 4-door Superbird, 68 Charger, Chevelle SS, or Road Runner?
I can't.
Then again, I'm not the focus market for these cars, so it's a good thing they aren't listening to me.
I've received two of these such letters (covering 4 parts total) over the years from Audi. I've actually had to use the letter that covered one part (on a reimbursement request since it failed prior to the letter being issued). The other letter I'll just keep until I hit 120K miles.
These letters build a lot of goodwill, and are an excellent thing for a company to do. I'm glad to see and hear GM has issued some of these letters. It shows that a company is willing to stand behind its product.
I must assume Chrysler doesn't believe in warranties because I never received any such letters regarding the '95 Neon and it's been over 17 years now; still waiting, but not holding my breath. :P
I had to ‘settle’ for driving a 2011 BMW.
[ poor me ]
By the time my lease expires, this should be available to test drive.
- Ray
Hoping this SS is even better than the G8 GT. . .
I can't.
I do agree with you, but today, 2-door cars just don't sell. And on a similar note, I thought the 4-door Grand Prix was just wrong. It should have been called "LeMans" or "Tempest" IMO. And on the subject of LeMans, putting that name on the rebadged Daewoo thingie in the late 80's was just a travesty!
With high performance 4-doors though, I guess if you look back a bit further than the musclecar era, they were there. Many say that the musclecar had its roots in the Buick Century, a car that combined the lighter Special body with the big Roadmaster engine. Chrysler did a similar thing in the early 50's, dropping the New Yorker Hemi in the lighter Windsor body.
When Dodge came out with the D-500 in the mid/late 50's, it was technically an engine and not a model. Supposedly you could order it in any series or body style. However, I'm sure most of them were Coronet hardtop coupes and convertibles. Probably not too many 4-door sedans, or upper-crust Custom Royals.
I've also heard that DeSoto offered the hot Adventurer engine as an option on the mass market models for 1959. However, I've never seen one...could have been a mis-print.
And, in the late 60's, we did have high-performance 4-doors. It's just that they were usually painted black and white, and were often seen chasing the Chargers, Chevelle SS'es, GTOs, etc. :P
But yeah, I'm with you. Personally, I'd rather see the likes of the Charger as a coupe. Even though it wouldn't sell very well, it just seems more proper. But, digging up past heritage, I really can't think of an old Dodge name that would really fit the current Charger, as it is. I guess rightfully it should be called Coronet...but that name just sounds a bit stuffy, pretentious, and old-fashioned today. Same with Monaco, a name that I associate more with the full-sized cars, but there was a midsized Monaco for 1977-78, a rebadge of the old Coronet. Since then, we've had Diplomat, 600, Dynasty, and Intrepid, and none of them really fit today's car, IMO. Diplomat/Dynasty fall into the stuffy/pretentious theme, 600 is too generic, and when I think of Intrepid, I think of something futuristic and forward-looking, but not really muscular, whereas the Charger is more of a throwback.