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
No it's the ridiculously high incentives on each car. We've been at 16M+ sales the last 6 or 7 years. There aren't many "worn out" vehicles.
The settlement is estimated to be $303 million, or about 27 cents per share. I think I only had 100 shares at the most, so it almost doesn't seem worth it to fill out the paperwork for a whopping 27 bucks. Plus, it feels like kicking them when they're down. :sick:
And the attorneys will take $270 million of it. Thanks Stan Chesley for making class action big business, for attorneys, at least. I've been a part of many class action suits, currently wait to see results on one. The attorneys get the money and not the victims.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes, true it IS one of the top selling cars, thing is you appear to conveniently forget the latter words in the sentence: in numbers, and most those numbers go to fleet sales Oh yeah you also forgot to add: "after rebates and dealer incentives"
"My experience with GM cars is that they are certainly not inferior. Last time I checked, the D3 made more excellent vehicles here than Japan does. Go check the owner's reviews for the 2009 Malibu."
The Malibu is good, not great. If you read my earlier posts I did specifically write that the Malibu is a very credible entry, but still needs more refinement. With competitors like Accord I get the impression "I get what I paid for", with Malibu? Still "I get less from what I paid for". You need to compare the cars firsthand, try every controls, switches, buttons, steering, braking, handling response, etc. Only then you'll realize that the Malibu still has to catch up to competitors. This is where "experts" like Edmunds come in handy, they're less biased at least, allowing them to make more accurate judgements. I'm not saying 100%, because even pros can be biased, like C/D for example.
Second, add D3's reputation for having more lemons than apples (they still do), you get the current result. Remember the old saying: "it takes years to win customers and just one second to lose them forever". To wipe off the shoddy image GM needs to come up with something really excellent, and currently most the lineups dont deliver that.
Apart from Corvette and CTS, I dont see anything else really worth buying from GM. Tahoe is nice, but truck-SUVs a dying breed, there's no denying that. Silverado is good, but Ford F150 is better. Traverse will be a worthy product with better fuel mileage, and in reality the new trend is "downsizing" to midsize-CUVs. Only a few people still find large SUV/CUVs appealing.
I've learned to read carefully what "owner's reviews" say, as many of them are biased. Being a proud domestic brand buyer cause many to overlook gleaming errors and flaws and think they got the best car in the world. Thats not just for domestics, all die hard (insert brand name) fans will stand up to their choice no matter what losing their logics, and there are loads of them out there. Bias never translates to accuracy.
Well said, nwng. This is exactly what I'm trying to point out. The only reason gas is cheaper now is because the world cant afford it at higher price. When the economy gets better, I dare bet the gas proces will soar again. And when that happens, bye-bye SUV-truck sales.
That the truck-SUV sales rise immediately as fuel hits below $2/galon is a real proof of many American's ignorance and short-sightness. On the other hand, economy cars sales slumped not just because the public cant afford it, buat also because GM HAS NO ADEQUATE ECONOMY CARS to begin with. You can argue all you want that the Cobalt receiver higher mileage than Civics or Corollas, but fuel mileage alone doesnt translate into CLASS LEADING.
Btw, Vette. I recall you saying EPA method as scientific, right? Just curious, do:
1) keep the throttle as light as possible
2) test surface as level, as close to the sea level as possible
3) not turning the AC on
...sound scientific to you???? Because those are what EPA methods basically are. I still say EPAs are off, not only for domestics but also for all menufacturers. Frankly, I wont be surprised if EPA is on some, if not all major carmakers' payroll. Afterall, its their top defense against CAFE.
Btw, how many people drive without AC on anyway? :P
LOL, imidazol. Spoken like a true bias yourself. You say everyone? Sure, whatever. I dislike GM as a company, and I dislike most their products, yes. However I, along with many others here and out there, have good reasons. We have issues with their quality, with their non-improving service, with the way they scam us by giving us "world class GM trash", etc. OTOH you seem to defend GM all the time for no obvious reason...
I dislike GM, yet I still like Corvette and CTS and dare call them world class. OOhhhhh I am sooooo biased, am I not? :P :P :P
1) keep the throttle as light as possible
2) test surface as level, as close to the sea level as possible
3) not turning the AC on
...sound scientific to you???? Because those are what EPA methods basically are. I still say EPAs are off, not only for domestics but also for all menufacturers. Frankly, I wont be surprised if EPA is on some, if not all major carmakers' payroll. Afterall, its their top defense against CAFE.
Btw, how many people drive without AC on anyway?
Also recall that I have said that this data makes a comparison between vehicles appropriate. If you drive with AC both comparison vehicles would be effected. Same with sea level. What are they going to do, test at different sea levels or add multiple factors depending on where you live? How much more confusing that would be?
btw, the current test standards do include AC on.
G8 only?
G6 will be gone?
Vibe? Dealer channel needs small car
Solstice?
Several lawyers said that one of the critical issues facing the bankruptcy system now is the lack of credit.
Most firms that file for bankruptcy use what is called debtor-in-possession financing to restructure under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Hammer said. But local lawyers are doubtful that such financing would be available, especially if a large number of companies file for protection, as some lawyers are beginning to suspect might happen.
Without that financing, many companies that don't generate enough cash could be forced to close and sell their assets.
"You would be looking at more liquidations," Hammer said.
What's more, if one of the automakers, or a host of suppliers, file for bankruptcy, many banks and lenders that have already been shaken by the housing crisis could be hurt even more when the auto companies don't pay their bills.
Baum said that the number of banks that will find loans "in serious jeopardy as a result of a bankruptcy filing of one or more of the automakers is mind-boggling."
As production volumes and payments to suppliers diminish, suppliers' ability to remain in good standing with their lenders and make loan payments also will diminish, Baum said.
"All suppliers are going to have difficulties with their banks and the banking industry will suffer enormously," he said.
But who will have the money to buy these bankrupt suppliers? Banks do not have it. Suppliers do not have it. Guess Toyota/Honda will have to step up and buy them.
Monday, French President Nicholas Sarkozy is scheduled to meet the heads of Renault SA and PSA Peugeot Citroën SA to discuss using some of France's €26 billion stimulus package for the auto makers and suppliers Faurecia SA and Valeo SA.
Sweden has approved a $3 billion of support for its two auto makers, Saab and Volvo, owned by GM and Ford, respectively. Portugal has authorized a credit line for its auto plants.
Germany's federal government and some state governments are considering providing loans to Opel, the German unit of GM. One sticking point has been how to ensure the money stays in Germany and doesn't go to GM in the U.S.
On the radio they China is putting out 50 billion to their car makers but I cannot find any data on that.
They may buy up the factories that supply them. I would look for China and India to buy much of the assets, at bargain basement prices. Knowing the suppliers in Michigan have a tainted workforce.
with 17,690 sales,(that is a 70% drop!!) according to the Automotive News Data Center. Ditto
the Corolla, 52,826 sold in May 2008 versus 21,807 (60% drop) sold in November; and
the Focus, 32,579 sold in May versus 8,194 sold in November.(75% DROP)
Cobalt was down 65%
But Ford has been forced to restore two shifts and overtime work to meet
demand for its re-engineered 2009 F-150 pickup truck . . . and Nissan is
retooling its taxpayer-assisted, nonunion plant in Canton, Miss., to
take on Detroit in the commercial truck arena. Silverado was down 15%
Your post got me thinking again about something that's been on my mind lately: why don't the Japanese transplants just step in to help out all the distressed suppliers? Ford is already prepaying for many of its parts in an attempt to help out its suppliers, and I understand the J3 are playing around with that idea as well (perhaps have already begun implementing it?). But they could go one step further, to ready themselves for when GM and/or Chrysler give up the ghost: they could use some of the billions in profit they have scored just over the last 6 months to prop up domestic suppliers for a year to give them time to transition to new contracts with the remaining automakers.
Why won't they do it? Because they are hanging onto their profits too tightly, and they are unwilling to part with them, that's why. So when ol' Irv from your quote there or the guy from American Honda talk about how they "won't be able to shield themselves from the impact of an automaker's collapse because the number of distressed suppliers in North America already is in the hundreds", what they are really saying is they are too cheap to pitch in and do their part to better their OWN futures. They would rather urge the government to spend ITS money instead.
Of course, as I understand it that's how business is done in Japan, so maybe that perspective shouldn't be surprising.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2009 Car of the Year: Nissan GT-R
2009 SUV of the Year: Subaru Forester.
2009 Truck of the Year: Ford F150
Because of simple logic - buy low, sell high. Why spend $1.00 when 1 month later you could spend $0.01?
It's funny you mention the Toyota / Japanese manufacturing methods because many companies didn't really understand the ideas and practices behind it. They figured they could cherry-pick some points out of it and adapt it to their system (and then they wondered why it didn't work), not realizing it is a "system". But those that actually read, understood and implemented the entire system it worked out great.
And your right, Assembly Magazine is great - been a subscriber for a long time. I do need to cut down on my mags - I get too darn many and sometimes am reading issues a month old. But they all offer great information and are nice reads.
Back to GM and their blues.
Still way more engine than I need or want. I am thinking a 3.0 L would be plenty for a F150. Most PU trucks are used as runabout vehicles. Through a couple hundred pounds in the back on occasion. The 3 liter diesels now from Germany are putting out over 400 Lbs of torque. That would be more than enough for most people. If they are hauling a 15k pound trailer they need a F350 for the weight. When will Americans get over their obsession with power and 0-60 MPH time? My wallet stays shut to all new vehicles until they have something I absolutely want in a diesel.
Well the J3 don't own the suppliers, and if Cerberus who DOES own Chrysler won't put up its funds for what it owns, don't you think that is even more heinous?! It really costs the B3 little to see if the Congress and the public are saps.
Every corporation is supposed to operate to increase the wealth of its own shareholders; and since there is a given amount of wealth in the world, that means - take what others would have. I think shareholders would be quite upset if the management decide to run the company as a charity!
It would also be foolish of the J3 to spend billions too early, so as to support their competitors. The J3 and Ford and the Europenas will step in with money to the suppliers if GM or GM/Chrysler go under, but not until.
If you read stories about the collapse of the auto industry and the suppliers if the government doesn't start bailing them out, all you need to do is to realize they have a strong motive - to save their billions of $'s and use someone else's! It's all a Bluff. The auto industry isn't going to shutdown because GM stops ordering seats, and Toyota needs to order extra seats, because customers now switch and go to the Toyota dealer.
Well, that's three of you that expressed that belief just in the short time since I last posted. And I agree with you. But it's clear that the doom-and-gloomers have ignored this fact? Or are there THAT MANY suppliers who ONLY supply a domestic automaker(s)?
Either way, I see little to no interruption to the operations of transplant automakers if one of the domestics goes into bankruptcy. I DO see them having to shell out a fair amount of green to keep their suppliers running at the necessary pace. But they have the money to do it, so it's not a concern.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wonder ...
Auto parts supplier Key Plastics files Chapter 11
Toyota is delaying the Blue Springs plant and rumors are that VW is cutting way back on plans for the new Chattanooga factory. The seat makers may lose economy of scale and just close.
The slack may be taken up off-shore.
That's the true goal of all of this.
That's the true goal of all of this
Whose goal?
I smell conspiracy theorists' brains working overtime.
I smell the condescending babble of the reality-denying sheeple seeping in again...
I know diesel engines are durable, but I wonder if the extra displacement allows for lower cylinder pressure. A 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton diesel will get a lot harder workout than your average German car.
Considering current 6-7 liter diesel's used in the domestics are cranking out around 300-350hp and 600-650ft-lbs of torque range, I'd imagine a 4.4liter diesel will be in the 200-250hp and 400-450 ft-lbs of torque, which would be perfect for a 1/2 PU.
Look at the 3.0 MB diesel used in the Sprinter. 150hp and 280ft-lbs of torque. No thanks, I'll keep my gas v8 with 365ft-lbs of torque and 300hp. I don't want to think about having a 6,000lb SUV, towing my 6,000lb camper with only 280ft-lbs of torque and 150hp. You'd have throw a brink on the go pedal to keep your foot from getting tired. That might work for the go to Home Depot crowed, but that won't cut it for those of us who need the towing power.
There must be a reason they don't put the higher output 3.0 liter diesels in the Sprinter. I wonder if has to do with ability of the lower output diesel to handle the work load of a Sprinter? Or it could be cost.
My MB Cruiser had the 2.7 L 5 cylinder Mercedes diesel engine. That RV was about 8000 lbs. I never had a problem in the hills driving it at the speed limit. It consistently gave me 22+ MPG and several tanks were up to 25 MPG. I think the difference is what you plan to tow. The Mercedes GL320 CDI has a towing capacity of 7700 lbs. I have a friend that gets 28 MPG cruising at 75 MPH all day. You cannot get that with any gas vehicle that size. I just think the 4.4L will be over kill for a 1/2 ton.
The new sprinter is not designed as a tow vehicle. That 280 ft lbs of torque is at 1200 RPM. That should give great mileage as a work vehicle. I would have loved to had that 2.7 L diesel with the 5 speed in a 1/2 ton PU truck. I know I could get better than 30 MPG out on the highway. My utility trailer is never loaded over 4000 lbs so that is not a problem.
Just different needs. I will never buy another new gas vehicle. Such a waste of fuel.
Yup, you got that right. Benefits of globalization:
Enough gasoline to power our economy.
Fresh produce year-round.
Televisions.
Most electronics.
Great vehicle, but way more $$ than I want to tie up in an SUV. I'd love a diesel of similar power in something like my Expedition that can be had in the $40k range. I'm not going to spend $10k+ more for a diesel.
While we have different needs, I think a diesel in the 4 liter range would be welcome.
There is another reason for this. The J3 are very afraid of the political backlash - and possible protectionism - that would result if one of the B3 went out of business. Remeber, a past CEO of Toyota once suggested raising prices (for the Japanese cars) to help GM out....
So if the Govt is going to bail out B3, they are quite happy to go along with that.
If the Big 3 go under look for a huge exodus of suppliers.
That is the key. IF all 3 domestics go under. I don't think Ford is on the brink of disaster. They don't have the legacy costs that are enormous for GM. I just don't see with the mix currently in Congress any bailout without C11 for GM or Chrysler. Ford would just like some money available. None of the 3 are in good financial condition. One would have a better chance to survive than all 3 sharing the limited number of vehicles being sold. I don't think we will ever see sales in the 16 million range again. Loose credit was the impetus and it got US into big trouble. Banks will be scrutinized closer in the future. A kid working at McDonalds is not likely to get a no money down loan on a new Denali Tahoe.
The general weight and damping of the steering and brakes are matched to BMW and Audi rather than featherweight Japanese contenders. The steering has overstrong self-centering around the straight ahead, which makes it spear down an autobahn with confidence.
The Insignia certainly takes corners with impressive zeal, leaving little impression of nose-heaviness, and there's plenty of traction for the turbo to push its shoulder against. Mid-corner bumps are also brushed off with impunity.
Indeed the overall ride quality is another asset. The body shell is rigid, there's no powertrain bounce and the suspension copes even with complex combinations of crests and potholes. Good insulation from chassis, wind, and road noise was one of the best things about the Insignia's predecessor and is carried over here. It all adds to the sense of relaxation in a car that, at least in Europe, will be used by drivers who cover vast miles.
They'll appreciate the excellent seat support and the quality of the interior materials and build. Few old GM buttons or stalks have been carried over: This is a clean-sheet design. The whole cabin is a superb piece of work, with beautifully integrated major surfaces and switch panels floating a little ahead of them to give a quality effect. The principal interior downside is marginal rear headroom.
It looks sleek, but muscular, too, with an excellent stance over the wheels.
The sheer quality of the platform is evident from the drive, and talking to the engineers reveals a host of reasons why. So much has been upgraded compared with the old car: wider damper tubes, bigger bushes everywhere, larger wheels and tires, aluminum knuckles, aluminum lower links in both front and rear suspensions, high-strength steel in the body, stronger subframes. It's simply a higher quality piece of work.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0807_2009_opel_insignia_first_dri- ve/index.html
This with the G8 and the Solstice gives Pontiac a stable of performance vehicles. Keep the Vibe for the fuel economy end (not important today but someday it will be again). Buick would have the Lucerne, new LaCrosse (also based on EPS II) and the Enclave with GMC rounding out with a couple real SUV's and PIckups:Sierra and Yukon. (drop the Acadia in a couple years)
Looks like this economy is taking care of the dealership issue. Those cities with too many are losing some.
The way I understand it is if Ford goes into bankruptcy they go right under. They have no assets left to sell or get money for. GM does have the assets. Am I understanding this properly?
Ford would like some money available but they have no assets to cover it. Now the government may loan money to Ford w/o any backing assets but probably not. Give Ford 3 months and they will be in the same boat as GM.
What happens at Ford? I assume the UAW will give the same concessions. There will be no bonuses and some officers will cut their salaries. But will the holders of all their assets agree to take 30 cents on the dollar like what was agreed to at GM? If Ford does not get all these concessions that puts them at a disadvantage.
Err, I think you're confused already. I did say EPA numbers are off for ALL manufacturers. The point I'm trying to make is: there is nothing scientific about their testing methods, and this so called "calculations" doesnt reflect real life mileage, the reason I refuse to believe EPA numbers. Thats all.
"btw, the current test standards do include AC on. "
Whoops, you're right. My mistake.
Exactly. Great point, gagrice. Actually Chinese newspapers already have a few articles showing Chinese auto industries' interest in buying GM and Chrysler assets. particularly Chery and FAW, if I recall correctly. They're huge, and have the means (read: cash), it'll be no problem for them to pay for the purchase. Nothing is heard yet from India, as the country's largest auto manufacturer TATA is having trouble with Jaguar not doing as good as expected.
"But they could go one step further, to ready themselves for when GM and/or Chrysler give up the ghost: they could use some of the billions in profit they have scored just over the last 6 months to prop up domestic suppliers for a year to give them time to transition to new contracts with the remaining automakers.
Why won't they do it? "
Why should they? Its easy to reverse the question. If I run Toyota or Honda I'll let hell freeze before they can force me to buy out extra suppliers the company doesnt need. Its business 101.
Btw, doesnt anyone wonder why competitors like Toyota and Honda really stand up for the D3??? Helping them out? Toyota will fail along with D3? I doubt it. Then I got the revelation: D3 under new management will become competitive, and once they add new decent products they will steal the Japanese competitors' sales. Make sure D3 cant revive, I believe this is their real agenda.
Imagine an all new GM. Clean sheet, restructured, offering a redesigned Malibu with better quality and better price (no more hidden production costs like now). Then they show up face-to-face against Camry, currently falling apart in quality, priced higher, etc. It wont take long for Malibu to steal Camry's crown. This will become nightmare for Toyota. This has happened before, does anyone recall Toyota's sudden sales drop when the revived Nissan dropped the "2002 Altima bomb" on them? It handily took a whole chuck out of Camry and Accord's sales.
GM board of execs definitely have a hidden agenda behind this bailout proposal. Though I must ask how stupid can they be doing this the same time they still expect the bailout proposal to get accepted? Or perhaps GM is pulling a threat on congress, "give us money or we produce somewhere else"? To me it only makes my point even more obvious, GM has neither plan to restructure nor to avoid BK. They're simply trying to scam us, again.
Comments, anyone?
A very real premise to consider. Nice doesn't mean they're not looking out for the J-group.
Didn't the US have a meeting with Japanese representatives the day before or day of the Pearl Harbor attack?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Saturn Astra is a fine little car but was designed without a second thought to U.S. consumers, and funnily enough they've not taken it to their hearts. On the other hand, the Vue, designed with the U.S. in mind, has hardly caught fire over there as an Opel.
But the New Opel Insignia, which will be the next Aura, must be the best chance yet. After all, the current Aura proves this size and package of car are right for the times, and the new one -- sampled here as the Opel Insignia variant -- is a far better car to drive and more of a looker, too.
Nice looking car. Will it continue to be built in the EU with a new name over here?
That is very possible. Did Ford sell or leverage their overseas operations such as the new modern plant in Brazil? Or did they just sell their US properties while the market was hot? The only thing keeping any of the Domestics from building overseas and shipping their vehicles here is the tariffs on PU trucks. Though I suppose they could build their trucks & SUVs in Mexico and Canada and get away from the UAW.
There are going to be 4 plants building the Cruze. Lordstown will be making them here for US consumption. One in China, one in Europe and one in Russia. GM is a worldwide company and have plants everywhere. Suppliers are being chosen that can supply world wide with plant locations in each region. i.e. Johnson Controls will supply HVAC heads with them being built in each region.
Do not have any idea why GM would be going bankrupt with some idea of producing vehicles elsewhere for US consumption. Sure they build a few vehicles outside of NA that could be imported but they are very few and low volume. However if given a couple years they could probably tool up a lot of plants overseas and import.
But to fulfill that vision for the company, Mulally needed at least $17 billion. He took his plan - one very similar to the one Ford submitted to Congress last week - to 40 banks at a time when credit flowed freely, and he ended up raising $23.5 billion. He bet all of Ford's buildings, stock, intellectual property, stakes in foreign automakers, and even its trademark blue logo as collateral.
The company had $18.9 billion in cash on hand on Sept. 30 and still had about $10.7 billion of its credit lines available.
Yet Ford could be standing on a melting iceberg. The company spent $7.7 billion more than it took in the third quarter as U.S. auto sales fell, reaching an annualized sales rate of 10 million in November, the lowest level since October 1982.
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/nation/story/807613.html
Nice looking car. Will it continue to be built in the EU with a new name over here?
It was supposed to be the new Saturn Aura next year as an 2010 and built at the Kansas City Fairfax plant. Now that Saturn will not be getting any new products someone else will get it. Two choices left:Chevy or Pontiac. The Pontiac/Buick/GMC VP said Pontiac MAY be getting some Opel products instead of Saturn. hint hint
The question then. Will they be cheapened from the EU version to try and make a profit with our added legacy costs? I even see Toyota making cheaper versions of cars like the Prius for the US consumer vs the EU consumer. I guess we are just not as sophisticated when it comes to automobiles.
Good question. US buyers of midsize cars tend not to want to spend a lot of money. In this case I would look to see the same vehicle with some of the base content (of the Insignia) made optional or part of a package to reduce the base price to somewhere close to $25k. But the interior/exterior/powertrain should be identical. I guess the question is how much of the current Aura is different than the Opel version?