The chart shows that every year the Asians displace 200,000 D3 cars. If linear, the entire D3 volume is gone in 14 years. This could be the reason to not help the D3. They will be at zero customers in 2022.
That's right. Survival of the fittest, Dave. Nuff said.
It also shows that there has been a steady decline in car sales in NA since 2000. We are becoming less of a market for anybody making cars. What explains this?
The new emerging markets are China and Russia. US market's been declining for a while and not expected to rise back high enough to challenge Russia and especially China.
Are the quality of cars increasing so fast that new replacements are not needed as fast anymore? Yes. When maintained properly vehicles can last over 10 years or more
Are we becoming a nation of people who can't afford new cars anymore? In more ways than one, yes.
Are the jobs that support new car buying dissappearing? Yes. Have you looked at job markets the last few years?
Is all our new car money funnelled into gas instead? Nope. It's wasted on America's tradition of overconsumption.
Will the price charged by Asia for new cars rise as they take all the volume and then there is no competition? Nope. Expect rising Korean brands to challenge the Japanese in value.
I do not think that $14.50 an hour for all US autoworkers is a good plan. Mitsubishi put a new plant in W.V. to take a huge chunk of parts business from the UAW. GM managers were promoted for coming up with the cost cuts associated with giving the business to the lower cost Asian supplier.
Unless you wish to maintain current lifestyle temporarily then drop dead afterwards, a significant drop in costs and wages is necessary. Again, survival of the fittest, no simpathy for the losers.
The Frontier sells well, but otoh the Titan tanks. From what I see people tend to choose Japanese models for smaller trucks (being more fuel friendly than domestics), American for full size trucks (having better utility than imports do).
That's probably because the domestics don't build a compact pick up worth a crap. While the Titan was impressive when introduced, it's now the oldest full-size on the market and pretty much done from what I understand.
I don't think the drop off in domestic full-size truck sales has anything to do with the quality of the product. The current crop of full-size trucks are better than ever. What's happened is a direct result to two things. $4/gal gas making those who didn't really need a truck, but wanted one go elsewhere and the credit/housing mess, means less contractors/workers having jobs or feeling comfortable enough to buy a new truck. I'm sure the problems with credit also has caused a lot of people who wanted to buy a truck to get declined.
I heard a report on CBS tonight on the US domestic 2008 sales and a buyer was canvased on a quoted offer on a 2008 Tahoe he was considering. The sticker was $52K (assume it was the hybrid) but with incentives, the price was cut by $14K.
At the end of the piece, the buyer was reluctant with all of the uncertainty surrounding GM and he opted to shop on.
I wonder how many more incentivized units will be turned down in Q1 considering the current state of affairs. Ford seems to be at the forefront of all the current problems in the market. Too bad most of their choices are ho-hum as well.
Looks to me like cars from the 1960s and 1980s were far better than current vehicles. I think 2007 was a real bad year for Toyota. The Camry and Tundra were both problematic. There are things I dislike and consider defective on my Sequoia that Toyota will not fix. Not sure I would buy another. Though overall it is far better built than the 2005 GMC PU truck.
I did not know that GMAC had exclusive rights to financing with GM and interest promotions.
GMAC LLC will no longer have exclusive rights to provide no- or low-interest loans to people who take advantage of General Motors Corp. financing incentives, as part of the complex deal that gave the troubled lender billions in federal aid.
The move could reduce the Detroit automaker's dependence on GMAC to provide financing and possibly boost its sales by giving consumers more options for affordable loans.
In its filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, GMAC said GM can now offer financing incentives such as zero-percent loans through other lenders under certain circumstances. Some of the restrictions disappear in December 2010, and all of the restrictions will be gone three years later.
GM dealers already have seen significant sales increases as a result, said Jesse Toprak, executive director of industry analysis for the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.
"In the last few days, dealerships have been telling us that they did 40 percent of their business for December in the last week," Toprak said. "The uptick is certainly more than we traditionally see in the month of December."
I don't think the drop off in domestic full-size truck sales has anything to do with the quality of the product.
Actually, I personally consider F150 the most reliable full size truck out there. My college bud's Ram1500 has been around for 3 years with amazingly no trouble save for jammed right window (fixed under warranty).
A report on a newscast said Honda and TOYota had increases in the numbers of recalls this last year.
That's news for Honda, nothing new for Toyota, the number of recalls for Toyota continues to rise every year. Compared to the 90s their products are practically falling apart (just look at current Camry and it's fist size gaps between panels).
Sure. That's why government should keep loaning them money so in the end they can do it like Wallstreet banks do: refusing to disclose any information on how the bailout money's been spent so far because: "It's impossible to trace" or "We refuse to release any informations because it's not required under the contract". And unless there are specific rules in the agreement I bet 100% GM and Chrysler officials will give the same answer when the congress ask for bailout details.
So ironic how the cunning losers get government support, while the winners and actual "the have nots" don't. :sick:
Yes, it's sad that a failed industry gets life support. Banks included. The final laugh is the rich got fooled by one of the key players of the game, Mr. BM. He was the Wagoner of Wall St.
Actually, if you think about it, the CDS trades are really a sophisticated Ponzi sceme in themselves. Throw them out and then hedge against falling value. I get it now.
Make boring, low quality products and the Gov't will take over so don't even sweat it. Just keep asking nicely and you will be taken care of because your too big to fail. Lehman was an admitted oops. Next up, homeowners who over bought...after that, consumers who overspent. How the heck am I not in any of these categories?? I'm not up to speed on current events, I guess.
Ironic, indeed. Toyota Honda, meet Kia and Hyundai. Deja Vu.
Sure. That's why government should keep loaning them money so in the end they can do it like Wallstreet banks do: refusing to disclose any information on how the bailout money's been spent so far because: "It's impossible to trace" or "We refuse to release any informations because it's not required under the contract". And unless there are specific rules in the agreement I bet 100% GM and Chrysler officials will give the same answer when the congress ask for bailout details.
There is no way this will happen. More ranting w/o any kind of facts or data.
The government has pledged to provide $250 billion to banks in return for partial ownership. The goal is for banks to use the money to boost lending. However, a recent review by The Associated Press found that after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks can't say exactly how they're spending the money. Some wouldn't even talk about it.
The idea behind the capital injection program is for banks to use the money to rebuild reserves and lend more freely to customers. However, banks do have leeway to use the money for other things, such as buying other banks, paying dividends to investors or bonuses to executives. That's touched a nerve with some lawmakers and other critics.
Money from the bailout pot also has been used for other things, including throwing a financial lifeline to ailing auto companies, and teetering insurance giant American International Group. Money also was used to back a rescue for Citigroup Inc.
So we assume that the auto bailout money is golden and will be tracked sufficiently according to the agreement. GMAC include. No problem. They have had success in the past with their finances.
There is no way this will happen. More ranting w/o any kind of facts or data.
Regarding GM, given it's current state, it's more like a suspicion. I mean look at the "we need your support" ad, that's already a shameless way of poking us for cash, unwillingly for many I dare say. I'm serious, there's a huge chance GM will do the same as WS. As for WS banks, no facts or datas? Have you watched the news lately? Check AP, Fox, it's everywhere. Even congress is starting to balk, threating to stop loaning money if the banks and insurance companies still refuse to release informations.
Here's one piece I managed to find from the AP:
WASHINGTON – Think you could borrow money from a bank without saying what you were going to do with it? Well, apparently when banks borrow from you they don't feel the same need to say how the money is spent. After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending it. Some won't even talk about it. "We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion. Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that while some of the money was lent, some was not, and the bank has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is being used. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to," Kelly said. The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest? None of the banks provided specific answers. "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going. "We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout. There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks that don't comply. "It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout. But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out. Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent. "Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?" A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes. But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money. Some said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless. Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story." Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret. "We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government. One didn't even want to say they wouldn't say. Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."
Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending. Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money. "It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said. But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask. "If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said. Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.
Sorry you misunderstood my comments. I thought I said I was discussing a comment by someone that insinuated GM would abscond with the loan and not let anyone know what they did with it. I stated categorically that that will not happen and that all the usages of the loan monies will be completely transparent to the government oversight committee. You seem to think that I was referring to the banks and insurance companies that absconded, in my opinion, with the money. I was not.
There is no huge chance and in fact virtually none of what you said will happen with the GM money.
Sorry you misunderstood. There is a very strong chance transparency will be quite elusive at GM and C.
Uncle Sugar has completed the transfer of the first $4b of a $13.4b loan to General Motors, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Despite CEO Rick Wagoner’s previous pronouncement that his employer had enough cash to last through 2009, the artist once known as the world’s largest automaker (and the world’s most profitable corporation) was in danger of running out of money. And now it isn’t. Until later. Meanwhile, you might think that a $13.4b “investment” in GM would buy the U.S. taxpayer a little something called “transparency.” As The LA Times reports, you’d think wrong. “The cash-strapped Detroit company plans to use the money for continuing its operations GM is obligated to make a large payment to a major supplier in early January; it has declined to offer details on the amount it owes or to which supplier.” And there are more strange doings over at Chrysler. (The automaker’s owned by Cerberus Capital, a private equity firm with close ties to the federal government, increasingly famous for bending rules to its advantage while operating under the cover of darkness.) “Auburn Hills, Mich.-based Chrysler is expecting $4 billion in cash as well, but the Treasury has yet to announce the closing of the first round of loan money. ‘We’re working expeditiously with Chrysler to finalize that transaction and we remain committed to closing it on a timeline that will meet near-term funding needs,’ [Treasury spokeswoman Brooklyn] McLaughlin said. Isn’t it wonderful how responsive our federal government is to the public’s– I mean, private industry’s needs? But wait! There’s more! Lots more!
“Before the deal was signed, the Treasury set out guidelines for what it called the Automotive Industry Financing Program,” the much-relieved Detroit Free Press reports. “which will offer aid to companies similar to the $6 billion injected into GMAC on Monday under the $700-billion financial industry bailout.”
More specifically [via Reuters] a payout depends on “whether a major disruption of the institution’s operations would likely have a materially adverse effect on employment and thereby produce negative spillover effects on overall economic performance.”
So let’s call it the gastric bypass rule: unless you’re REALLY big, you don’t qualify. So I guess it really is about jobs, jobs, jobs. Isn’t it? Despite the fact that small business is the backbone of the U.S. economy.
If GM is working on a turnaround plan, and a restructure that will make Pontiac a single-model or a niche brand, why is Pontiac still getting the Aveo-twin the G3? Shouldn't GM has announced that this model was cancelled as a step within that restructure plan?
As The LA Times reports, you’d think wrong. “The cash-strapped Detroit company plans to use the money for continuing its operations GM is obligated to make a large payment to a major supplier in early January; it has declined to offer details on the amount it owes or to which supplier.”
Declined to who? The press? I never said that GM would tell all their financial outlays and actions to the press. The books are open to the government. And why would any company list out who they pay what to all their suppliers? The reason GM needed the money was to pay its day to day debts. They have said they are making those payments and even say they made a payment to a major supplier. What did you expect, GM to list their outlays in the daily media?
Now if there is a government committee that goes to GM and asks them to list where the money went and GM tells them they will not I will bow down to your wisdom.
I do recall someone here stating that GMAC would be like all the other banks and sit on the money. That was mis proved 24 hours after the money was promised.
And it is all about jobs. If GM can keep it's doors open the suppliers will keep their jobs and all the way up and down the food chain. It is only when someone hangs onto the money and does not use it that the chain is broken (i.e. the banks)
"How would cancelling the already completed G3 help in GM's restructuring plan? The money is spent. Future product will revised and I foresee 3 Pontiac models with the G3 not one of them"
There is hardly any money spent for the G3. It has been on sale in Canada for more than a year. The only reason why the USA is getting it now is to please Pontiac/GMC/Buick dealers craving for more models. This is what needs restructuring. Those dealers should now get used to a smaller Pontiac. What message are you sending them when you give them a G3, except that GM is taking steps, just not fast enough?
Now if there is a government committee that goes to GM and asks them to list where the money went and GM tells them they will not I will bow down to your wisdom.
There is the Freedom of Information Act in place. Any money spent by Congress is supposed to be open to scrutiny. So if GM sends $3 billion of our tax dollars to China for parts. Don't you think we should know where our money is going?
PS I think we should have the same right to all the money given to the banking and Insurance companies. I would like to know who is benefiting from our tax dollars.
>I think we should have the same right to all the money given to the banking and Insurance companies. I would like to know who is benefiting from our tax dollars.
I totally agree with that. Indeed where the money really has gone to the financial end is actually more telling than everyone's being distracted arguing over the auto industry and their use of the money. It's my opinion the financial rescues were to cover Congress' misdeeds and the obscuring of information there is to save face. :shades: The auto industry has been the whipping boy. :sick: It's like a kid caught in a lie trying to distract with some arguement about another distantly-related item.
On the other hand the problems of the auto industry go beyond management and UAW although they are heartily involved. The problems tie to EPA, CAFE, government regulations, and others that control how imports have been allowed to compete in this country.
Question: where are batteries for Ford's new hybrid Fusion going to be built?
The problems tie to EPA, CAFE, government regulations, and others that control how imports have been allowed to compete in this country.
OK. If trucks could get the same or better EPA ratings as cars, we would have no problem in the US auto industry. In addition, if gasoline stayed at $1.50/gallon, GM and C would be healthy now. The imports wouldn't have had a prayer. Correct?
Let me know how EPA, CAFE and regs really killed GM and C while letting the Asians proliferate. I am sure that quality and value/price proposition is a weak benefit to the imports.
Let me know how EPA, CAFE and regs really killed GM and C while letting the Asians proliferate.
The EPA emissions favor smaller cars. CAFE regulations favor smaller cars. The imports could build smaller cars over seas and ship them here cheaper than the B3 and UAW could possibly build them. The consumer up until this last oil spike wanted high powered PU trucks and SUVs more than they wanted econo boxes. If it was a market purely built on competition I think the Big 3 would be OK. The EPA, CAFE and CARB have battled with the Big 3 for Eons. Only recently when Toyota got into big rigs did they feel the pressure.
".......Let me know how EPA, CAFE and regs really killed GM and C while letting the Asians proliferate. I am sure that quality and value/price proposition is a weak benefit to the imports."
While I do agree that 6,8,10 years ago the Big 3 should've been flush with cash because of low gas prices and high demand for their trucks and SUV's, loopholes in the CAFE regs that allow Subaru to call the Outback a "truck" and not a station wagon (a car) gave them the opportunity to enter the "truck and SUV" market with car based vehicles. They took advantage of this, and made money, more than they would've if those Pilots and Ridgelines and Odyessies were Accord wagons, and KUDOS to them for that.
If I had my way, a truck would be BOF, anything else, a car. Unless the industry as a whole could prove to me otherwise. There would be 2 classes of trucks and 2 classes of cars:
Basically, light duty trucks are 8600 GVW and lower getting one standard (say 27 mpg) a medium light duty would be 8601-14,000 GVW, and would have to show they are this class by meeting certain specs for suspension, etc. They would get a lower standard (say 25 mpg)
Cars get classified in 2 categories: those 6 passenger and lower, and those w/ more than 6 pass. This way you could get your 40 mpg rating out of a car, and CUV's would be given a lesser rating due to the fact they carry more and are a slightly different bird than a car. (if the govt says 37.5 for cars, then allow say 33 for the CUV's).
So achieving high economy is off the US target according to the regulations because we can't make cars economically in this country to fight high energy costs?
The big 3 could have killed competition by using the cash gained from SUV/Truck sales to develop bullet-proof and high economy cars with desirability and performance. It's the other way around. Blame regulations all you want but all industries face tougher regulations in order to change to market conditions.
You are right. I'm not blaming CAFE standards for the Big 3 downfall at all. To me, they seemed to be doing a good job up until about 1988. Then everything seemed to plateau as the economy tanked back then, and the the prosperity from the dot com boom and cheap gas made the SUV and truck market boom. It's only in the last couple years we've started paying attention to CAFE standards.
I feel that CAFE standards are what helped push people out of station wagons and into trucks and SUV's, as the wagon is a "car" and even a minivan is a "truck". This is the only problem I have with CAFE standards, the loophole that allows mfr's to classify "cars' as "trucks"
Declined to who? The press? I never said that GM would tell all their financial outlays and actions to the press. The books are open to the government. And why would any company list out who they pay what to all their suppliers?
It's the public's money so the public at the very elast deserves to know what their money is spent on. There's no need to release all financial infos, however I do believe it's mandatory to release informations on the bailout money to the public, press included.
Another reason, even the government isn't clean. That leaves the last option, public release to make sure we receive actual, un-"revised" information.
All I'm saying is there's huge chance GM will pull the same trick as WS, they're just as dirty. Those financial institutions, INCLUDING GMAC, refused to release information to BOTH public and government.
It's our money, we have the right to know.
The reason GM needed the money was to pay its day to day debts. They have said they are making those payments and even say they made a payment to a major supplier. What did you expect, GM to list their outlays in the daily media?
Yes, exactly. Like I said, not all, only each related to bailout spendings, every single penny.
Many households in my neighbourhood signed a petition letter to our reps basically saying 1) They're disappointed by the government's decision to give GM and Chrysler bailout with barely any strings attached, and 2) That GM and Chrysler have lost them as customers until every cent of the bailout is returned.
Not too many people signed, only 229. However in a living community of roughly 280-300 houses it sounds plenty. This is my living area only, I dare bet there are lots of others out there.
Given current situation, I'm not sure even GM can ignore that. Karma, I say... :P :P
All I'm saying is there's huge chance GM will pull the same trick as WS, they're just as dirty. Those financial institutions, INCLUDING GMAC, refused to release information to BOTH public and government.
Come on, how is GM "just as dirty" as WS???
When has GM or GMAC, since receiving the loans (2 days ago) refused to release relevent information to the government or public? GMAC announced they were lowering the cutoff level to 610 so they can give out more auto loans. Do you really want them to start a list?
Joe Smith......$14,386 3 year 680 score John cow.......$16,9900 etc.
Whilshire Chevrolet.. $345,987 for floor plan purchases
And then GM:
$395,000 Johnson Seat company For CTS seats, $76,000 Delphi for Cobalt radios
If GM and other bailout receivers wish to be honest, yes.
Joe Smith......$14,386 3 year 680 score John cow.......$16,9900 etc.
Not necessary, you can say: $xxx,xxx - Fairfax employee wages $xxx,xxx - Oshawa employee wages $xxx,xxx - XXX dealer closing compensation (insert place)
Whilshire Chevrolet.. $345,987 for floor plan purchases
And then GM:
$395,000 Johnson Seat company For CTS seats, $76,000 Delphi for Cobalt radios
As for this one, yes.
Not only GM and Chrysler, ALL bailout receivers should do the same. There's no excuse like "the public won't even read it", a lot of us will, and a lot of us will understand what's written on those papers.
If I were in charge of GM, I would have been scared S---less at the height of the SUV boom. Electric vehicle R&D spending would have been off the charts in the late '90's.
Incompetence again will let the Asians win the economy battle which is uphill...always, regardless of form of energy.
Listen, my wife's credit score is 840. She will never buy a GM again after the piece of junk in my garage. Have I mentioned it at a 1 year old battery and the speddometer freaked out and stopped working?
The gas gauge is failing today on the Professional Grade Truck but I laugh now instead of get angry. I EXPECT failure.
The 2.8 and 3.0 engines are smaller versions of the 3.6L HFV6 used elsewhere. What is interesting is that the old SRX 3.6L made 255 hp while this smaller 3.0L version makes 260 hp.
Expected to be on display at the Detroit auto show later this month, the 2010 SRX is based on GM’s Theta Premium platform — an enhanced version of the regular Theta architecture, which forms the basis for the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox and 2010 GMC Terrain. (Saab’s 9-4X is expected to use the “Premium” version of the Theta underpinnings as well, but recent rumors indicate it has been delayed.)
Power comes from either a 3.0-liter VVT E85 V6 with direct-injection, or a 2.8-liter Turbocharged V6. The 3.0 delivers 260 horsepower at 6950 rpm and 221 pound-feet of torque at 5600 rpm, while the smaller turbocharged mill cranks out 300 horsepower at 5500 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at 1850 rpm. Both come equipped with a standard Hydra-Matic 6T70 six-speed automatic. The three-liter E85 unit delivers 5 horsepower more than its predecessor, while offering a 10 to 15 percent improvement in fuel economy, GM claims.
The new SRX will be offered with a choice of either front-wheel-drive or AWD.
General Motors Corp. is counting on the 2010 Cadillac SRX crossover vehicle to lure luxury car buyers with new design and performance features.
Cadillac sales fell 24 percent in the first 11 months of 2008, about on par with U.S. light truck and SUV sales overall. The automaker sold nearly 148,000 Cadillacs in January through November, including about 14,800 SRXs. But Toyota Motor Corp.'s Lexus division sold five times as many RXs.
The 2.8 and 3.0 engines are smaller versions of the 3.6L HFV6 used elsewhere. What is interesting is that the old SRX 3.6L made 255 hp while this smaller 3.0L version makes 260 hp.
But the 3.6L makes 304hp if you compare direct-injection to direct-injection. Anyway, This engine is nice but nothing special, and trails the competition in the horsepower department. But I love the 300-hp turbo 2.8L. I think GM should use it in more models, like the CTS, Lacrosse and Lucrene, and it will definetely be ideal for the Lambda's too.
Seems to me that the SRX leads the competition in the HP department. Has the most efficient engine (displacement vs. HP) at both ends of the competition. If you want a nice running vehicle the 260hp does great with a small engine while at the other end it offers again a small displacement engine with best in class HP.
What will be interesting will be EPA ratings.
And a higher displacement 3.2 or 3.6L with or w/o turbo would drop right in if needed.
Isuzu says that it is officially ending new light vehicle sales in North America on January 31 as it attempts to clear out the last of its GM-derived pickups and SUVs. Isuzu had been selling rebadged versions of the Chevrolet Colorado (called the Isuzu i-series) and the Chevrolet Trailblazer (Isuzu Ascender), but the automaker managed to move just 7,098 vehicles in 2007 - and 2008 sales will be even lower when they are announced.
Isuzu has no plans to pull out of the commercial truck and diesel engine markets, where it has generally proven to be a strong industry force.
Cr-V was new for 2009 and gets 20/27 mpg with 166 hp
Toyota Rav4 gets 20/28 with 179 hp
2010 Equinox gets 21/30mpg with 182hp
Chevrolet will tout 30-mpg fuel economy when the restyled, re-engineered 2010 Equinox goes on sale next summer.
Peper called the crossover segments important "because the market for both compact and mid-sized crossover vehicles has grown steadily since 2003. Both of these segments are forecast to continue their growth trends in the next few years, and Equinox gives Chevy a volume player in this very critical market."
"We're going right after the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4," Peper said at a press briefing last month. "That is what this vehicle was designed to do."
GM's new direct-injection, 3.0-liter double overhead camshaft engine with an estimated 255 hp and 214 pounds-feet of torque is optional. That engine is expected to deliver 18 mpg city/25 highway.
BUICK The redesigned 2010 Buick LaCrosse draws heavily on the styling themes seen on the Buick Invicta concept, shown at the 2008 Beijing auto show.
Buick is moving the sedan upmarket and thinks it now has the hardware to attract Acura, Toyota and Nissan shoppers. The LaCrosse is the first North American vehicle engineered on GM's new global front- drive mid-sized vehicle architecture.
CADILLAC The redesigned SRX picks up on styling cues seen on the Cadillac Provoq concept shown last year in Detroit. The 2010 SRX crossover features a wide stance, minimal overhang and wheels pushed to the corners. The SRX will be the first Cadillac in recent years without a V-8 option — a concession to fuel economy.
CHEVROLET Chevrolet shows the restyled, re-engineered 2010 Equinox, which goes on sale next summer. The small crossover gets its first four-cylinder engine and a six-speed automatic transmission, meant to enhance fuel economy. The base engine will be General Motors' new direct-injection, 182-hp, 2.4-liter engine, with 174 pounds-feet of torque.
The credit freeze that is helping to kill new-vehicle retail sales also is forcing car rental companies to slash their fleet orders.
In 2008, rental companies bought 1.5 million new cars and trucks, down from 1.9 million in 2007, according to an estimate by the trade publication Auto Rental News. Sales are expected to fall even more in 2009 as rental companies shrink their vehicle fleets.
Robert Barton, president of the American Car Rental Association, says his industry is paralyzed by the credit crunch, the recession and cutbacks in business and leisure travel. The trade association, based in Owasso, Okla., represents 200 rental companies.
Many rental companies can't borrow money to finance the inventories they would like, Barton says. At the same time, he says, many franchised dealers cannot get financing to buy thousands of retired rental vehicles at auctions.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car, the nation's largest rental company, expects to buy 400,000 new vehicles in the 2009 model year. That's about half the total of recent years, spokesman Patrick Farrell said. The figure covers rental cars bought for the Enterprise, National and Alamo brands.
Farrell said Enterprise now keeps its rental vehicles in service for an average of 13 months, up from 11 months.
Enterprise is one of General Motors' largest customers. In past years, Enterprise bought as many as 200,000 vehicles from GM. Farrell said Enterprise is buying fewer vehicles from GM this model year, but he declined to be specific.
Historically, rental companies have bought 15 percent of new cars and trucks built by GM, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, says John Healey, a rental industry analyst at FTN Midwest Securities Corp. in Cleveland.
Mark Mathews, GM's director of used-vehicle activities, says the company expects to sell 450,000 2009-model vehicles to rental companies, down from 585,000 in 2008 and 600,000 in 2007.
Even though automakers are offering rental companies better deals on many new vehicles, Hertz Car Rental isn't taking advantage of them, spokesman Rich Broome says. Hertz, the No. 2 car rental company, maintains about 300,000 vehicles in its U.S. fleet. Broome says the company is likely to cut back on new-vehicle purchases this year.
"It's going to be tough when rental demand is falling and the used-car market is so weak," he says.
Thompson said Dollar Thrifty had 102,700 cars and trucks in its fleet in November, compared with a full-year average of about 140,000.
May I assume that the 21/30 Equinox quoted is the FWD model? Toyota's FWD RAV4 is rated 22/28, not 20/28. That said, if Toyota would spend a few bucks and update the RAV4's totally inadequate 4-speed auto to a 6-speed like Chevy's, or at least the 5-speed that the Camry with the same engine already has, we might have a bit of a fuel economy battle on our hands! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am really getting annoyed at the GM commercials! They show their product, and ask you "are you surprised?" Seriously, what exactly are they trying to do? Its like they are trying to suck up to us all for the substandard image they have had. They are pretty much stating, Yeah, are you surprised that GM can make a good solid product? This is the message they are sending when the commercials are played. When really they mention a good warranty, but when looking closely, offer nothing more than the competitors. Other company's just show their commercials, maybe gloat a bit, its their company, so go ahead, but at the end of the commercial, do they go " are you surprised?". This really annoys me...lol. They show some guilt in the commercial, never before did the show this many commercials. Notice they only show their premium cars on the commercials.
I think GM knows that they got caught, and now they have to make up for it. Using their Bail out money to put those silly ads on. It will take more than this to get people to have a little pride and faith in their product.
Sorry about that. Toyotas website mislead me!! I pointed at the RAV4 base model and it took me to the uplevel model. Anyway I got there somehow but it is right in your face at 22/28. But still the 21/30 is competitive with the Rav4.
Comments
That's right. Survival of the fittest, Dave. Nuff said.
It also shows that there has been a steady decline in car sales in NA since 2000. We are becoming less of a market for anybody making cars. What explains this?
The new emerging markets are China and Russia. US market's been declining for a while and not expected to rise back high enough to challenge Russia and especially China.
Are the quality of cars increasing so fast that new replacements are not needed as fast anymore?
Yes. When maintained properly vehicles can last over 10 years or more
Are we becoming a nation of people who can't afford new cars anymore?
In more ways than one, yes.
Are the jobs that support new car buying dissappearing?
Yes. Have you looked at job markets the last few years?
Is all our new car money funnelled into gas instead?
Nope. It's wasted on America's tradition of overconsumption.
Will the price charged by Asia for new cars rise as they take all the volume and then there is no competition?
Nope. Expect rising Korean brands to challenge the Japanese in value.
I do not think that $14.50 an hour for all US autoworkers is a good plan. Mitsubishi put a new plant in W.V. to take a huge chunk of parts business from the UAW. GM managers were promoted for coming up with the cost cuts associated with giving the business to the lower cost Asian supplier.
Unless you wish to maintain current lifestyle temporarily then drop dead afterwards, a significant drop in costs and wages is necessary. Again, survival of the fittest, no simpathy for the losers.
From what I see people tend to choose Japanese models for smaller trucks (being more fuel friendly than domestics), American for full size trucks (having better utility than imports do).
That's probably because the domestics don't build a compact pick up worth a crap. While the Titan was impressive when introduced, it's now the oldest full-size on the market and pretty much done from what I understand.
I don't think the drop off in domestic full-size truck sales has anything to do with the quality of the product. The current crop of full-size trucks are better than ever. What's happened is a direct result to two things. $4/gal gas making those who didn't really need a truck, but wanted one go elsewhere and the credit/housing mess, means less contractors/workers having jobs or feeling comfortable enough to buy a new truck. I'm sure the problems with credit also has caused a lot of people who wanted to buy a truck to get declined.
At the end of the piece, the buyer was reluctant with all of the uncertainty surrounding GM and he opted to shop on.
I wonder how many more incentivized units will be turned down in Q1 considering the current state of affairs. Ford seems to be at the forefront of all the current problems in the market. Too bad most of their choices are ho-hum as well.
Regards,
OW
Anyone got the data?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090102/AUTO01/901020337/- 1148
GMAC LLC will no longer have exclusive rights to provide no- or low-interest loans to people who take advantage of General Motors Corp. financing incentives, as part of the complex deal that gave the troubled lender billions in federal aid.
The move could reduce the Detroit automaker's dependence on GMAC to provide financing and possibly boost its sales by giving consumers more options for affordable loans.
In its filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, GMAC said GM can now offer financing incentives such as zero-percent loans through other lenders under certain circumstances. Some of the restrictions disappear in December 2010, and all of the restrictions will be gone three years later.
GM dealers already have seen significant sales increases as a result, said Jesse Toprak, executive director of industry analysis for the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.
"In the last few days, dealerships have been telling us that they did 40 percent of their business for December in the last week," Toprak said. "The uptick is certainly more than we traditionally see in the month of December."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090103/AUTO01/901030346/1148- /auto01
Things will change, I'm sure.
Regards,
OW
Actually, I personally consider F150 the most reliable full size truck out there. My college bud's Ram1500 has been around for 3 years with amazingly no trouble save for jammed right window (fixed under warranty).
A report on a newscast said Honda and TOYota had increases in the numbers of recalls this last year.
That's news for Honda, nothing new for Toyota, the number of recalls for Toyota continues to rise every year. Compared to the 90s their products are practically falling apart (just look at current Camry and it's fist size gaps between panels).
So ironic how the cunning losers get government support, while the winners and actual "the have nots" don't. :sick:
Actually, if you think about it, the CDS trades are really a sophisticated Ponzi sceme in themselves. Throw them out and then hedge against falling value. I get it now.
Make boring, low quality products and the Gov't will take over so don't even sweat it. Just keep asking nicely and you will be taken care of because your too big to fail. Lehman was an admitted oops. Next up, homeowners who over bought...after that, consumers who overspent. How the heck am I not in any of these categories?? I'm not up to speed on current events, I guess.
Ironic, indeed. Toyota Honda, meet Kia and Hyundai. Deja Vu.
Regards,
OW
There is no way this will happen. More ranting w/o any kind of facts or data.
The idea behind the capital injection program is for banks to use the money to rebuild reserves and lend more freely to customers. However, banks do have leeway to use the money for other things, such as buying other banks, paying dividends to investors or bonuses to executives. That's touched a nerve with some lawmakers and other critics.
Money from the bailout pot also has been used for other things, including throwing a financial lifeline to ailing auto companies, and teetering insurance giant American International Group. Money also was used to back a rescue for Citigroup Inc.
So we assume that the auto bailout money is golden and will be tracked sufficiently according to the agreement. GMAC include. No problem. They have had success in the past with their finances.
Regards,
OW
Regarding GM, given it's current state, it's more like a suspicion. I mean look at the "we need your support" ad, that's already a shameless way of poking us for cash, unwillingly for many I dare say. I'm serious, there's a huge chance GM will do the same as WS.
As for WS banks, no facts or datas? Have you watched the news lately? Check AP, Fox, it's everywhere. Even congress is starting to balk, threating to stop loaning money if the banks and insurance companies still refuse to release informations.
Here's one piece I managed to find from the AP:
WASHINGTON – Think you could borrow money from a bank without saying what you were going to do with it? Well, apparently when banks borrow from you they don't feel the same need to say how the money is spent.
After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending it. Some won't even talk about it.
"We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.
Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that while some of the money was lent, some was not, and the bank has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is being used.
"We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to," Kelly said.
The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?
None of the banks provided specific answers.
"We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking," said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.
Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.
"We manage our capital in its aggregate," said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.
There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks that don't comply.
"It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry," said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.
But, at least for now, there's no way for taxpayers to find that out.
Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.
"Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. "Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?"
A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase's plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.
But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.
Some said the money couldn't be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money "doesn't have its own bucket." But he said taxpayer money wasn't used in the bank's recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn't being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.
Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: "We are going to decline to comment on your story."
Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret.
"We're not sharing any other details. We're just not at this time," said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.
One didn't even want to say they wouldn't say.
Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn't share spending specifics, added: "I just would prefer if you wouldn't say that we're not going to discuss those details."
Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.
Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money.
"It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers," she said.
But Warren said she's surprised she even has to ask.
"If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said.
Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.
Still think there's no data???
There is no huge chance and in fact virtually none of what you said will happen with the GM money.
Uncle Sugar has completed the transfer of the first $4b of a $13.4b loan to General Motors, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Despite CEO Rick Wagoner’s previous pronouncement that his employer had enough cash to last through 2009, the artist once known as the world’s largest automaker (and the world’s most profitable corporation) was in danger of running out of money. And now it isn’t. Until later. Meanwhile, you might think that a $13.4b “investment” in GM would buy the U.S. taxpayer a little something called “transparency.” As The LA Times reports, you’d think wrong. “The cash-strapped Detroit company plans to use the money for continuing its operations GM is obligated to make a large payment to a major supplier in early January; it has declined to offer details on the amount it owes or to which supplier.” And there are more strange doings over at Chrysler. (The automaker’s owned by Cerberus Capital, a private equity firm with close ties to the federal government, increasingly famous for bending rules to its advantage while operating under the cover of darkness.) “Auburn Hills, Mich.-based Chrysler is expecting $4 billion in cash as well, but the Treasury has yet to announce the closing of the first round of loan money. ‘We’re working expeditiously with Chrysler to finalize that transaction and we remain committed to closing it on a timeline that will meet near-term funding needs,’ [Treasury spokeswoman Brooklyn] McLaughlin said. Isn’t it wonderful how responsive our federal government is to the public’s– I mean, private industry’s needs? But wait! There’s more! Lots more!
“Before the deal was signed, the Treasury set out guidelines for what it called the Automotive Industry Financing Program,” the much-relieved Detroit Free Press reports. “which will offer aid to companies similar to the $6 billion injected into GMAC on Monday under the $700-billion financial industry bailout.”
More specifically [via Reuters] a payout depends on “whether a major disruption of the institution’s operations would likely have a materially adverse effect on employment and thereby produce negative spillover effects on overall economic performance.”
So let’s call it the gastric bypass rule: unless you’re REALLY big, you don’t qualify. So I guess it really is about jobs, jobs, jobs. Isn’t it? Despite the fact that small business is the backbone of the U.S. economy.
Regards,
OW
As The LA Times reports, you’d think wrong. “The cash-strapped Detroit company plans to use the money for continuing its operations GM is obligated to make a large payment to a major supplier in early January; it has declined to offer details on the amount it owes or to which supplier.”
Declined to who? The press? I never said that GM would tell all their financial outlays and actions to the press. The books are open to the government. And why would any company list out who they pay what to all their suppliers? The reason GM needed the money was to pay its day to day debts. They have said they are making those payments and even say they made a payment to a major supplier. What did you expect, GM to list their outlays in the daily media?
Now if there is a government committee that goes to GM and asks them to list where the money went and GM tells them they will not I will bow down to your wisdom.
I do recall someone here stating that GMAC would be like all the other banks and sit on the money. That was mis proved 24 hours after the money was promised.
And it is all about jobs. If GM can keep it's doors open the suppliers will keep their jobs and all the way up and down the food chain. It is only when someone hangs onto the money and does not use it that the chain is broken (i.e. the banks)
Future product will revised and I foresee 3 Pontiac models with the G3 not one of them.
So the G3 is a niche??? They will need to cancel it sooner or later.
Regards,
OW
Future product will revised and I foresee 3 Pontiac models with the G3 not one of them"
There is hardly any money spent for the G3. It has been on sale in Canada for more than a year. The only reason why the USA is getting it now is to please Pontiac/GMC/Buick dealers craving for more models. This is what needs restructuring. Those dealers should now get used to a smaller Pontiac. What message are you sending them when you give them a G3, except that GM is taking steps, just not fast enough?
There is the Freedom of Information Act in place. Any money spent by Congress is supposed to be open to scrutiny. So if GM sends $3 billion of our tax dollars to China for parts. Don't you think we should know where our money is going?
PS
I think we should have the same right to all the money given to the banking and Insurance companies. I would like to know who is benefiting from our tax dollars.
I totally agree with that. Indeed where the money really has gone to the financial end is actually more telling than everyone's being distracted arguing over the auto industry and their use of the money. It's my opinion the financial rescues were to cover Congress' misdeeds and the obscuring of information there is to save face. :shades: The auto industry has been the whipping boy. :sick: It's like a kid caught in a lie trying to distract with some arguement about another distantly-related item.
On the other hand the problems of the auto industry go beyond management and UAW although they are heartily involved. The problems tie to EPA, CAFE, government regulations, and others that control how imports have been allowed to compete in this country.
Question: where are batteries for Ford's new hybrid Fusion going to be built?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
OK. If trucks could get the same or better EPA ratings as cars, we would have no problem in the US auto industry. In addition, if gasoline stayed at $1.50/gallon, GM and C would be healthy now. The imports wouldn't have had a prayer. Correct?
Let me know how EPA, CAFE and regs really killed GM and C while letting the Asians proliferate. I am sure that quality and value/price proposition is a weak benefit to the imports.
Regards,
OW
The EPA emissions favor smaller cars. CAFE regulations favor smaller cars. The imports could build smaller cars over seas and ship them here cheaper than the B3 and UAW could possibly build them. The consumer up until this last oil spike wanted high powered PU trucks and SUVs more than they wanted econo boxes. If it was a market purely built on competition I think the Big 3 would be OK. The EPA, CAFE and CARB have battled with the Big 3 for Eons. Only recently when Toyota got into big rigs did they feel the pressure.
While I do agree that 6,8,10 years ago the Big 3 should've been flush with cash because of low gas prices and high demand for their trucks and SUV's, loopholes in the CAFE regs that allow Subaru to call the Outback a "truck" and not a station wagon (a car) gave them the opportunity to enter the "truck and SUV" market with car based vehicles. They took advantage of this, and made money, more than they would've if those Pilots and Ridgelines and Odyessies were Accord wagons, and KUDOS to them for that.
If I had my way, a truck would be BOF, anything else, a car. Unless the industry as a whole could prove to me otherwise. There would be 2 classes of trucks and 2 classes of cars:
Basically, light duty trucks are 8600 GVW and lower getting one standard (say 27 mpg) a medium light duty would be 8601-14,000 GVW, and would have to show they are this class by meeting certain specs for suspension, etc. They would get a lower standard (say 25 mpg)
Cars get classified in 2 categories: those 6 passenger and lower, and those w/ more than 6 pass. This way you could get your 40 mpg rating out of a car, and CUV's would be given a lesser rating due to the fact they carry more and are a slightly different bird than a car. (if the govt says 37.5 for cars, then allow say 33 for the CUV's).
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
I feel that CAFE standards are what helped push people out of station wagons and into trucks and SUV's, as the wagon is a "car" and even a minivan is a "truck". This is the only problem I have with CAFE standards, the loophole that allows mfr's to classify "cars' as "trucks"
It's the public's money so the public at the very elast deserves to know what their money is spent on. There's no need to release all financial infos, however I do believe it's mandatory to release informations on the bailout money to the public, press included.
Another reason, even the government isn't clean. That leaves the last option, public release to make sure we receive actual, un-"revised" information.
All I'm saying is there's huge chance GM will pull the same trick as WS, they're just as dirty. Those financial institutions, INCLUDING GMAC, refused to release information to BOTH public and government.
It's our money, we have the right to know.
The reason GM needed the money was to pay its day to day debts. They have said they are making those payments and even say they made a payment to a major supplier. What did you expect, GM to list their outlays in the daily media?
Yes, exactly. Like I said, not all, only each related to bailout spendings, every single penny.
1) They're disappointed by the government's decision to give GM and Chrysler bailout with barely any strings attached, and
2) That GM and Chrysler have lost them as customers until every cent of the bailout is returned.
Not too many people signed, only 229. However in a living community of roughly 280-300 houses it sounds plenty. This is my living area only, I dare bet there are lots of others out there.
Given current situation, I'm not sure even GM can ignore that. Karma, I say... :P :P
Come on, how is GM "just as dirty" as WS???
When has GM or GMAC, since receiving the loans (2 days ago) refused to release relevent information to the government or public? GMAC announced they were lowering the cutoff level to 610 so they can give out more auto loans. Do you really want them to start a list?
Joe Smith......$14,386 3 year 680 score
John cow.......$16,9900 etc.
Whilshire Chevrolet.. $345,987 for floor plan purchases
And then GM:
$395,000 Johnson Seat company For CTS seats,
$76,000 Delphi for Cobalt radios
If GM and other bailout receivers wish to be honest, yes.
Joe Smith......$14,386 3 year 680 score
John cow.......$16,9900 etc.
Not necessary, you can say:
$xxx,xxx - Fairfax employee wages
$xxx,xxx - Oshawa employee wages
$xxx,xxx - XXX dealer closing compensation (insert place)
Whilshire Chevrolet.. $345,987 for floor plan purchases
And then GM:
$395,000 Johnson Seat company For CTS seats,
$76,000 Delphi for Cobalt radios
As for this one, yes.
Not only GM and Chrysler, ALL bailout receivers should do the same. There's no excuse like "the public won't even read it", a lot of us will, and a lot of us will understand what's written on those papers.
Incompetence again will let the Asians win the economy battle which is uphill...always, regardless of form of energy.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
The gas gauge is failing today on the Professional Grade Truck but I laugh now instead of get angry. I EXPECT failure.
Regards,
OW
Expected to be on display at the Detroit auto show later this month, the 2010 SRX is based on GM’s Theta Premium platform — an enhanced version of the regular Theta architecture, which forms the basis for the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox and 2010 GMC Terrain. (Saab’s 9-4X is expected to use the “Premium” version of the Theta underpinnings as well, but recent rumors indicate it has been delayed.)
Power comes from either a 3.0-liter VVT E85 V6 with direct-injection, or a 2.8-liter Turbocharged V6. The 3.0 delivers 260 horsepower at 6950 rpm and 221 pound-feet of torque at 5600 rpm, while the smaller turbocharged mill cranks out 300 horsepower at 5500 rpm and 295 pound-feet of torque at 1850 rpm. Both come equipped with a standard Hydra-Matic 6T70 six-speed automatic. The three-liter E85 unit delivers 5 horsepower more than its predecessor, while offering a 10 to 15 percent improvement in fuel economy, GM claims.
The new SRX will be offered with a choice of either front-wheel-drive or AWD.
2009 Detroit Auto Show: 2010 Cadillac SRX
Cadillac sales fell 24 percent in the first 11 months of 2008, about on par with U.S. light truck and SUV sales overall. The automaker sold nearly 148,000 Cadillacs in January through November, including about 14,800 SRXs. But Toyota Motor Corp.'s Lexus division sold five times as many RXs.
Regards,
OW
But the 3.6L makes 304hp if you compare direct-injection to direct-injection.
Anyway, This engine is nice but nothing special, and trails the competition in the horsepower department. But I love the 300-hp turbo 2.8L. I think GM should use it in more models, like the CTS, Lacrosse and Lucrene, and it will definetely be ideal for the Lambda's too.
Oh I get so confused
SRX..2.8L....260hp
SRX..3.0L....300
RX....3.5L.....270
MDX.3.7L.....300
X3....3.0L.....260
Seems to me that the SRX leads the competition in the HP department. Has the most efficient engine (displacement vs. HP) at both ends of the competition. If you want a nice running vehicle the 260hp does great with a small engine while at the other end it offers again a small displacement engine with best in class HP.
What will be interesting will be EPA ratings.
And a higher displacement 3.2 or 3.6L with or w/o turbo would drop right in if needed.
Isuzu has no plans to pull out of the commercial truck and diesel engine markets, where it has generally proven to be a strong industry force.
Toyota Rav4 gets 20/28 with 179 hp
2010 Equinox gets 21/30mpg with 182hp
Chevrolet will tout 30-mpg fuel economy when the restyled, re-engineered 2010 Equinox goes on sale next summer.
Peper called the crossover segments important "because the market for both compact and mid-sized crossover vehicles has grown steadily since 2003. Both of these segments are forecast to continue their growth trends in the next few years, and Equinox gives Chevy a volume player in this very critical market."
"We're going right after the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4," Peper said at a press briefing last month. "That is what this vehicle was designed to do."
GM's new direct-injection, 3.0-liter double overhead camshaft engine with an estimated 255 hp and 214 pounds-feet of torque is optional. That engine is expected to deliver 18 mpg city/25 highway.
The redesigned 2010 Buick LaCrosse draws heavily on the styling themes seen on the Buick Invicta concept, shown at the 2008 Beijing auto show.
Buick is moving the sedan upmarket and thinks it now has the hardware to attract Acura, Toyota and Nissan shoppers. The LaCrosse is the first North American vehicle engineered on GM's new global front- drive mid-sized vehicle architecture.
CADILLAC
The redesigned SRX picks up on styling cues seen on the Cadillac Provoq concept shown last year in Detroit. The 2010 SRX crossover features a wide stance, minimal overhang and wheels pushed to the corners. The SRX will be the first Cadillac in recent years without a V-8 option — a concession to fuel economy.
CHEVROLET
Chevrolet shows the restyled, re-engineered 2010 Equinox, which goes on sale next summer. The small crossover gets its first four-cylinder engine and a six-speed automatic transmission, meant to enhance fuel economy. The base engine will be General Motors' new direct-injection, 182-hp, 2.4-liter engine, with 174 pounds-feet of torque.
In 2008, rental companies bought 1.5 million new cars and trucks, down from 1.9 million in 2007, according to an estimate by the trade publication Auto Rental News. Sales are expected to fall even more in 2009 as rental companies shrink their vehicle fleets.
Robert Barton, president of the American Car Rental Association, says his industry is paralyzed by the credit crunch, the recession and cutbacks in business and leisure travel. The trade association, based in Owasso, Okla., represents 200 rental companies.
Many rental companies can't borrow money to finance the inventories they would like, Barton says. At the same time, he says, many franchised dealers cannot get financing to buy thousands of retired rental vehicles at auctions.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car, the nation's largest rental company, expects to buy 400,000 new vehicles in the 2009 model year. That's about half the total of recent years, spokesman Patrick Farrell said. The figure covers rental cars bought for the Enterprise, National and Alamo brands.
Farrell said Enterprise now keeps its rental vehicles in service for an average of 13 months, up from 11 months.
Enterprise is one of General Motors' largest customers. In past years, Enterprise bought as many as 200,000 vehicles from GM. Farrell said Enterprise is buying fewer vehicles from GM this model year, but he declined to be specific.
Historically, rental companies have bought 15 percent of new cars and trucks built by GM, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, says John Healey, a rental industry analyst at FTN Midwest Securities Corp. in Cleveland.
Mark Mathews, GM's director of used-vehicle activities, says the company expects to sell 450,000 2009-model vehicles to rental companies, down from 585,000 in 2008 and 600,000 in 2007.
Even though automakers are offering rental companies better deals on many new vehicles, Hertz Car Rental isn't taking advantage of them, spokesman Rich Broome says. Hertz, the No. 2 car rental company, maintains about 300,000 vehicles in its U.S. fleet. Broome says the company is likely to cut back on new-vehicle purchases this year.
"It's going to be tough when rental demand is falling and the used-car market is so weak," he says.
Thompson said Dollar Thrifty had 102,700 cars and trucks in its fleet in November, compared with a full-year average of about 140,000.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2010 Equinox gets 21/30mpg with 182hp
May I assume that the 21/30 Equinox quoted is the FWD model? Toyota's FWD RAV4 is rated 22/28, not 20/28. That said, if Toyota would spend a few bucks and update the RAV4's totally inadequate 4-speed auto to a 6-speed like Chevy's, or at least the 5-speed that the Camry with the same engine already has, we might have a bit of a fuel economy battle on our hands! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think GM knows that they got caught, and now they have to make up for it. Using their Bail out money to put those silly ads on. It will take more than this to get people to have a little pride and faith in their product.