How 'bout a link to the Wall St Journal where it says that?
The real problem here is that you've come to a conclusion already, and you're looking for sources that agree with how you already think.
I'm far from a GM fanboy, haven't owned one since my '86 Sprint, and heck, I was accused of working for Toyota not long ago, but your posts are far from open minded.
GM leads at nothing?
Chevy Small Block. Name one engine more historically significant.
WSJ pseudo-capitalists or GM fanboys...hard to trust either :shades:
I'll just add that the most successful companies out there have competent passenger cars along with commercial vehicles. It seems losing the former is what did in the domestics.
Man, circle, you are a piece of work. I don't know a better way to put it. You copy that graph but leave out the chart that was right below it, showing units. In 2008, and 2009 'til the date of that particular post, GM comfortably outsold Ford in trucks. No ifs, ands, or buts. Open my link again and actually look.
Had bpizzuti actually clicked on the link, he'd have seen that the chart in that site was also from WSJ.
Geez, the facts are sure elusive on this board.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I care very much about Southern Textile workers and California semiconductor workers, Pittsburgh steel workers, and Philadelphia and NYC apparel workers, etc. as well as Detroit auto workers losing their livelihoods to slave labor in human rights, economic and environmental criminal China.
Change, in this case, is infinitely more than painful! IT'S FATAL!!!
First of all, my comment wasn't directed at any individual.
As for your concern, good for you. If the majority of Americans were equally as concerned, we wouldn't even be here discussing this, because it never would of happened in the first place.
Mom and pop stores wouldn't be threatened, and we most likely wouldn't have a Walmart on every corner. Nor would we be discussing whether or not GM needed bailing out by the government.
However, no rational observer can honestly deny the generalities of what I said.
It's always different when YOUR (not yours, personally, but generically speaking) ox is the one being gored.
With all this talk about the WSJ and about government lending money or being involved in saving companies..., I read in today's WSJ that a Sunoco (private company) refinery was being saved by Carlyle (a Bain like company) at the involvement of the WH. Carlyle put in $200,000,000 to help keep the refinery going to keep gas prices from going up, apparently due to its closure in the Philadelphia (Lemko's area) region. IIRC there was something about the WH encouraging EPA to relax (novel thought) regulations to keep the Sunoco (private company) refinery going.
So, so we want that government involvement in companies? Do we call the government to tell them to close the refinery? To keep their Carlyle rescue company (Bain like) from saving refinery.
Maybe someone has a subscription to WSJ and can refine (humor) my memory of the article. I just read it and didn't intend to use it, so I might, might have something wrong in my facts.
I still think GM deserves a better bailout again. Maybe a new WH would unravel the UAW stranglehold on the company.
I read the 2012 YTD light vehicle sales chart, did some quick math and discovered a disturbing fact that I didn' realize.
Fully 55% of vehicles sold so far this year are imported! Only 45% are "Domestic". I thought that was much higher.
No wonder there are so many unemployed. I say bring on the tariffs, and in all industries including energy. It will cause prices to rise some, but it would simultaneously lower the deficit, keep capital in this country, stimulate the economy and create jobs here for a change.
Then wouldn't it follow that 55% of the people working at jobs selling, supplying and servicing those imported cars get their pay and hours cut or maybe lose their jobs as well? Not to mention the impact on lost vehicle exports by Ford and GM when other countries return the favor.
Can you cite a single instance in which "protective measures" have ever had a net benefit, long term, when enacted?
Exactly how would "protective measures" that, by their very nature ultimately raise prices and increase inflation create meaningful, long term jobs? Lower the deficit? Stimulate the economy?
I agree with Steve. The mechanics, salespeople, etc. that work on imported models eat, house themselves and consume no different than the rest of us.
Protective actions usually spur reflexive reactions... The old "eye for an eye" thing, in which everyone ends up being blind.
You're kidding, right? Enter the term "greater good". How many employees work for GM, dealers, or their suppliers across the nation--compared to any other company you can name.
So by that standard, we pretty much should prop up all businesses that have big problems, even if inept, as long as they are big enough. Little ones - let them fail; big ones - tax and spend to "save the employees". Or are you favoring propping up ALL failing businesses?
Wasn't it Ronald Reagan that said you can't borrow your way to prosperity?
I sure want them to succeed else my new car buying days are over!
If my memory is correct, aren't your new car buying days *already* over? I seem to recall you have quite a bit of classic U.S. metal. Are you planning on buying something new, or just biding your time for that next "new car moment"? :P
GM makes enough negative news to drive economic recession. We post on the news! :P
Since emerging from its 2009 Chapter 11 bankruptcy and its November 2010 initial public offering, GM has seen its stock lose 36%, falling to about $21 last Friday. That reflects the firm’s lower revenues, profits and market share of late.
In the latest quarter ending June, GM’s revenues fell to $37.6 billion from $39.4 billion a year ago, and its net income fell 40% from $2.5 billion to $1.5 billion during the same period. The world’s largest automaker also saw its U.S. market share last quarter fall two percentage points to 18%—a far cry from its 1962 peak of more than 51%.
I think you can. Big and small businesses need access to credit in order to grow, or just to get off the ground. Lots of start-ups live off their VISA cards the first year. Instant cash flow in a new business is rare, and established businesses need to borrow to finance expansions and acquisitions and other stuff.
If a manufacturer needs a freeway to get their cars to market, borrowing funds that. Most recent example I can think of is Chattanooga where the state (and city I think, and likely the feds too) floated bonds (ie "borrowed money") to pay for infrastructure for the new VW plant. (Times Free Press)
Or get a bailout, and NO I didnt want it to happen.
I just did some interesting math. GM was loaned about $60B as part of the bailout. They (after BK) had 68K employees. So the bailout was a loan/gift of almost a $million per employee.
I'd say that if the business can't work with that sort of infusion, it should be lights out. Even $200 toilet seats for the military look cheap in comparison.
Well, I would think that would have something to do with Ford outselling GM in full-size trucks, but of course stuff like that never gets brought up here 'til I bring it up. Thanks for informing me.
When GM's trucks were new ('07?), did they then LEAD in sales? I honestly don't know.
People who like large SUVs. Boat towers. Patriotic midwesterners.
I still think they exist to sell to rental fleets. Why else refuse to right-size their business? They've got way more capacity than demand for their products, hence all the channel stuffing.
I think you can. Big and small businesses need access to credit in order to grow, or just to get off the ground. Lots of start-ups live off their VISA cards the first year. Instant cash flow in a new business is rare, and established businesses need to borrow to finance expansions and acquisitions and other stuff.
I'll grant you that. Perhaps the word sustained should be included. Loans are good, used wisely. But loaning $1,000,000 per employee, running a few years, and then some advocating for more infusions?
At some point there needs to be an expectation of success. Without using the "bad economy" as a crutch.
We should also ask how much more market share Ford might be experiencing if its competitors weren't being bailed out.
What "eye" can Korea and Japan hold against the US , though?
Simply withdraw the US military from the region, let the Chinese have their way with them....we will see who loses an eye. And China itself still needs American consumers a lot more than America needs China.
Taking that a little further down the line, we find the free market in free fall, or should I say, more like market lock-out, where China then controls sufficiently enough world market share to limit the US market exposure, and we no longer have customers (or few customers with any real ability to actually pay for stuff) to sell to, other than ourselves (and even our ability to pay ourselves for stuff is getting questionable).
China is already restricting the exports of rare-earth materials. And, China has about 1 billion more potential consumers than America provides. What's the fastest growing economy at this time? China...
I'm not really sure you have a total grasp of just how much of our "stuff" comes from China nowadays....I don't, but I know that with such a trade imbalance the US has with China (2011 figures = $295 billion) it's gotta be a heck of a lotta stuff!
Don't get me wrong.. I'm all for billing countries with thriving economies for US provided military protection. The US kept a significant military presence in Japan and Germany for decades, all under the guise of preventing re-militarization in those countries. Now, the justification used to remain hovering over Japan is the possible militaristic rise of China.
And, if S Korea doesn't see the value in spending more for national defense, then maybe it's time for them to get better acquainted with "dear leader". That oughta help them make the decision pretty quickly.
It doesn't have to be where we pay for all defense or zero defense. There has to be a middle ground that works for all concerned.
But what does China produce that we couldn't? Not wanting to and not being able to are different things. It's not exactly the land of progress and innovation. Some of that speculation could be undone simply by the first world refusing to do business with the monster. It sure as hell should not be our "most favored" partner...as Romney Hood as stated, we've declared a trade surrender.
Our best export should be our military. We have a pretty good one. Export it and charge for the costs plus a tidy profit. Everyone wins.
If I advertise 1,000,000 open job positions paying $1,000,000 each per year, starting tomorrow at 9 PM, and interviews starting at 9 AM; I think I could fill all 1,000,000 positions with enough HR people helping me.
The job requirements would include sweeping floors, being my personal assistants, and doing some charity work here and there.
1,000,000 new workers earning a millionaire's salary would make my new company the GREATER GOOD of them all in the USA.
Oh wait... I'll need a bailout to stay in business. Get the point? Often the greater good isn't good longterm for most.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
It shouldn't be that surprising to you. Anyone that bought a first home between 2003-2007 would probably agree with me.
I bought in mid-2004 and in 2008-2012 the value has hovered around 67% of the amount I paid. If home values were allowed to plummet naturally and normally (no bailouts) perhaps it would have dropped down to 50% or even 33% of its original value.
No problem, we could have all simply strategically defaulted and moved on. With home prices so low, those of us that saved money and had a good cash position would have been able to buy a new home just before our credit went downhill and just kept the bigger better home for the same price (3 times the home for the same loan amount possibly!).
As it stand with the bailouts, it seems in a few days I'll close on a HARP 2.0 Refinance at 4.125% (1% lower than current 30 year fixed). This is the best HARP 2.0 can do. It'll help, and makes strategic default less attractive (borderline decision not to even with all the bailouts).
But if home values had plummeted like they were supposed to, strategic default would have been a no-brainer and I'd be living high on the hog right now with a home 3 times better at the same price I've been paying (assuming the 66% drop scenario absent bailouts).
Yes, the bailouts were a disaster!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I still think GM deserves a better bailout again. Maybe a new WH would unravel the UAW stranglehold on the company.
Therein lies the problem.
The problem wasn't Bush/Obama, the way the bailout was handled, the market, the economy, or any other nonsense.
The problem was simply GM, the bailout itself (no matter how you handle it), and yes, the UAW is a part of the problem but not enough of it to make GM right simply by ridding themselves of it.
There is no "better" bailout. It doesn't exist. History has shown car companies that get bailed out require repeated frequent bailing (look at Chrysler).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
>Can you cite a single instance in which "protective measures" have ever had a net benefit, long term, when enacted?
How are they working for Korea, Japan, China? Seem to be keeping out the US products and controlling access to those Asian markets, while they have undercut the US producers with many tools for decades, including improper valuation of their currencies relative to the US Dollar.
When you show that other countries aren't using protective measures and other tools to keep the US makers out, in the past and now, I'll consider the argument against our slapping on protection today.
Just watched a preview about a documentary coming out called: "Death by China" The producer claims our trade deficit with them is responsible for a 2.5% loss of GDP every year. He claims this is the biggest contributor to our economic problems.
Some interesting facts: The US lost 6 million manufacturing jobs in the last 10 years resulting in the closure of 50,000 factories.
Oh and one of the greatest US companies of all time..Apple. They employ 26,000 people here and 700,000 in China.
My position concerning tariffs is this. We should be making the things we buy, including cars. Way over half of the Asian, German, & Korean brand cars we buy are not made in the US. A 15% tariff on those imports would force them to make more here, resulting in more jobs here. I don't think that over 50% of the cars sold in any other auto manufacturing country are imported. Their trade policy ensures that. I know that Korea has a higher tariff on our cars than we do on theirs. I don't necessarily think we should be selling cars there, but let us at least have a level playing field in this country. I think our trade negotiators are a bunch of nitwits. United Scmucks of America.
What percentage of cars sold in Germany, Japan, or Korea are imports? I'm sure it is very low.
My view is that our trade policy should be one of reciprocity. Anything they do to keep our products out we should have a right to do in return. Any time they drop trade barriers, we do.
This would have the maujor downside of killing many of the imports we get from Korea and Japan, considering they restrict imports from us MUCH more than we restrict their imports Outside of trucks anyway, and I think it's time to dump that Chicken Tax, if we're going to have protective trade tarrifs, just mirror the ones people are applying to our products. What's good for the goose and all.
Yes but GM refers to anything with 4 wheels and a hatch and no bed as a "light truck." It wouldn't surprise me if they threw Suburban numbers in there.
GM’s revenues fell to $37.6 billion from $39.4 billion a year ago
Anyone with a good memory will remember that a year ago the imports had no inventory due to the effects of the tsunami, so GM's sales were artificially inflated.
That's how they reduced their inventory stockpiles.
The Hemi. Ford Flathead V8. The Wankel rotary. The Honda ED (CVCC). The VW air-cooled flat-4.
Hemi came and went. A different engine with the same marketing name exists today, but it didn't survive uninterrupted like the small block has.
Ford flathead has been gone for how long now?
Wankel died. Again. Never succeeded, to be honest. I've owned 3 Mazdas, but it's laughable to compare the multiples failures of the Wankel to the small block's success. A joke.
Honda's CVCC was neat in its day, but a footnote compared to the small block Chevy's dominance.
VW flat four died long ago. They abandoned both the boxer layout and air cooled.
The small block lives on. It's the most successful internal combustion engine in history. Nothing else comes close.
The Chevy small block goes back at least to 1955 with the introduction of the 265 cid V-8 later enlarged to 283 in 1957. The classic 350 originated around 1959 as a 348. The ancestor of the Chevy small block could be the "Kettering" ohv V-8s from about 1949 used in Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles of the time.
When GM's trucks were new ('07?), did they then LEAD in sales? I honestly don't know.
From my earlier link to a GM fan site that had charts and graphs copied over from the WSJ, the answer in 2008 and 2009, anyway, was yes...by a comfortable margin.
I do think it's obvious, inside and out of this site even, that GM is facing a PR problem since the bankruptcy, about taking the bailout, which really doesn't have to do with people's satisfaction with their products. But it always cracks me up to hear people complain about the bailout, and then go right out in protest and buy a car from a North Korean, Japanese, or German company. Short memories and not 'big picture' thinking IMHO only.
Personally, I was unhappy with the forced reduction in dealer outlets. My nearby dealer--who treated me great--was one that left. A huge dealer organization was always a GM strong point IMHO.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Comments
The real problem here is that you've come to a conclusion already, and you're looking for sources that agree with how you already think.
I'm far from a GM fanboy, haven't owned one since my '86 Sprint, and heck, I was accused of working for Toyota not long ago, but your posts are far from open minded.
GM leads at nothing?
Chevy Small Block. Name one engine more historically significant.
I'll just add that the most successful companies out there have competent passenger cars along with commercial vehicles. It seems losing the former is what did in the domestics.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
Had bpizzuti actually clicked on the link, he'd have seen that the chart in that site was also from WSJ.
Geez, the facts are sure elusive on this board.
Down the page a bit (referencing the WSJ link a couple postings above) it shows BMW light trucks.
BMW doesn't make pickups. So, it's obviously looking at SUV/SAV sales.
In the end, I'm in Fintail's corner. It makes no difference who is on top. It's competency that matters...
I care very much about Southern Textile workers and California semiconductor workers, Pittsburgh steel workers, and Philadelphia and NYC apparel workers, etc. as well as Detroit auto workers losing their livelihoods to slave labor in human rights, economic and environmental criminal China.
Change, in this case, is infinitely more than painful! IT'S FATAL!!!
As for your concern, good for you. If the majority of Americans were equally as concerned, we wouldn't even be here discussing this, because it never would of happened in the first place.
Mom and pop stores wouldn't be threatened, and we most likely wouldn't have a Walmart on every corner. Nor would we be discussing whether or not GM needed bailing out by the government.
However, no rational observer can honestly deny the generalities of what I said.
It's always different when YOUR (not yours, personally, but generically speaking) ox is the one being gored.
So, so we want that government involvement in companies? Do we call the government to tell them to close the refinery? To keep their Carlyle rescue company (Bain like) from saving refinery.
Maybe someone has a subscription to WSJ and can refine (humor) my memory of the article. I just read it and didn't intend to use it, so I might, might have something wrong in my facts.
I still think GM deserves a better bailout again. Maybe a new WH would unravel the UAW stranglehold on the company.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Fully 55% of vehicles sold so far this year are imported! Only 45%
are "Domestic". I thought that was much higher.
No wonder there are so many unemployed. I say bring on the tariffs,
and in all industries including energy. It will cause prices to rise some,
but it would simultaneously lower the deficit, keep capital in this country,
stimulate the economy and create jobs here for a change.
Exactly how would "protective measures" that, by their very nature ultimately raise prices and increase inflation create meaningful, long term jobs? Lower the deficit? Stimulate the economy?
I agree with Steve. The mechanics, salespeople, etc. that work on imported models eat, house themselves and consume no different than the rest of us.
Protective actions usually spur reflexive reactions... The old "eye for an eye" thing, in which everyone ends up being blind.
So by that standard, we pretty much should prop up all businesses that have big problems, even if inept, as long as they are big enough. Little ones - let them fail; big ones - tax and spend to "save the employees". Or are you favoring propping up ALL failing businesses?
Wasn't it Ronald Reagan that said you can't borrow your way to prosperity?
If my memory is correct, aren't your new car buying days *already* over? I seem to recall you have quite a bit of classic U.S. metal. Are you planning on buying something new, or just biding your time for that next "new car moment"? :P
Since emerging from its 2009 Chapter 11 bankruptcy and its November 2010 initial public offering, GM has seen its stock lose 36%, falling to about $21 last Friday. That reflects the firm’s lower revenues, profits and market share of late.
In the latest quarter ending June, GM’s revenues fell to $37.6 billion from $39.4 billion a year ago, and its net income fell 40% from $2.5 billion to $1.5 billion during the same period. The world’s largest automaker also saw its U.S. market share last quarter fall two percentage points to 18%—a far cry from its 1962 peak of more than 51%.
No need to add any commentary, my friend.
Regards,
OW
I think you can. Big and small businesses need access to credit in order to grow, or just to get off the ground. Lots of start-ups live off their VISA cards the first year. Instant cash flow in a new business is rare, and established businesses need to borrow to finance expansions and acquisitions and other stuff.
If a manufacturer needs a freeway to get their cars to market, borrowing funds that. Most recent example I can think of is Chattanooga where the state (and city I think, and likely the feds too) floated bonds (ie "borrowed money") to pay for infrastructure for the new VW plant. (Times Free Press)
(btw Churchill apparently said it first)
People who like large SUVs. Boat towers. Patriotic midwesterners.
:shades:
I just did some interesting math. GM was loaned about $60B as part of the bailout. They (after BK) had 68K employees. So the bailout was a loan/gift of almost a $million per employee.
I'd say that if the business can't work with that sort of infusion, it should be lights out. Even $200 toilet seats for the military look cheap in comparison.
When GM's trucks were new ('07?), did they then LEAD in sales? I honestly don't know.
Chevy Small Block. Name one engine more historically significant.
I must be missing something. What does "historically significant" have to do with leading? :confuse:
I still think they exist to sell to rental fleets. Why else refuse to right-size their business? They've got way more capacity than demand for their products, hence all the channel stuffing.
I seem to remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Einstein)
I'll grant you that. Perhaps the word sustained should be included. Loans are good, used wisely. But loaning $1,000,000 per employee, running a few years, and then some advocating for more infusions?
At some point there needs to be an expectation of success. Without using the "bad economy" as a crutch.
We should also ask how much more market share Ford might be experiencing if its competitors weren't being bailed out.
Simply withdraw the US military from the region, let the Chinese have their way with them....we will see who loses an eye. And China itself still needs American consumers a lot more than America needs China.
The Hemi. Ford Flathead V8. The Wankel rotary. The Honda ED (CVCC). The VW air-cooled flat-4.
Taking that a little further down the line, we find the free market in free fall, or should I say, more like market lock-out, where China then controls sufficiently enough world market share to limit the US market exposure, and we no longer have customers (or few customers with any real ability to actually pay for stuff) to sell to, other than ourselves (and even our ability to pay ourselves for stuff is getting questionable).
China is already restricting the exports of rare-earth materials. And, China has about 1 billion more potential consumers than America provides. What's the fastest growing economy at this time? China...
I'm not really sure you have a total grasp of just how much of our "stuff" comes from China nowadays....I don't, but I know that with such a trade imbalance the US has with China (2011 figures = $295 billion) it's gotta be a heck of a lotta stuff!
Don't get me wrong.. I'm all for billing countries with thriving economies for US provided military protection. The US kept a significant military presence in Japan and Germany for decades, all under the guise of preventing re-militarization in those countries. Now, the justification used to remain hovering over Japan is the possible militaristic rise of China.
And, if S Korea doesn't see the value in spending more for national defense, then maybe it's time for them to get better acquainted with "dear leader". That oughta help them make the decision pretty quickly.
It doesn't have to be where we pay for all defense or zero defense. There has to be a middle ground that works for all concerned.
Our best export should be our military. We have a pretty good one. Export it and charge for the costs plus a tidy profit. Everyone wins.
The job requirements would include sweeping floors, being my personal assistants, and doing some charity work here and there.
1,000,000 new workers earning a millionaire's salary would make my new company the GREATER GOOD of them all in the USA.
Oh wait... I'll need a bailout to stay in business. Get the point? Often the greater good isn't good longterm for most.
It shouldn't be that surprising to you. Anyone that bought a first home between 2003-2007 would probably agree with me.
I bought in mid-2004 and in 2008-2012 the value has hovered around 67% of the amount I paid. If home values were allowed to plummet naturally and normally (no bailouts) perhaps it would have dropped down to 50% or even 33% of its original value.
No problem, we could have all simply strategically defaulted and moved on. With home prices so low, those of us that saved money and had a good cash position would have been able to buy a new home just before our credit went downhill and just kept the bigger better home for the same price (3 times the home for the same loan amount possibly!).
As it stand with the bailouts, it seems in a few days I'll close on a HARP 2.0 Refinance at 4.125% (1% lower than current 30 year fixed). This is the best HARP 2.0 can do. It'll help, and makes strategic default less attractive (borderline decision not to even with all the bailouts).
But if home values had plummeted like they were supposed to, strategic default would have been a no-brainer and I'd be living high on the hog right now with a home 3 times better at the same price I've been paying (assuming the 66% drop scenario absent bailouts).
Yes, the bailouts were a disaster!
I still think GM deserves a better bailout again. Maybe a new WH would unravel the UAW stranglehold on the company.
Therein lies the problem.
The problem wasn't Bush/Obama, the way the bailout was handled, the market, the economy, or any other nonsense.
The problem was simply GM, the bailout itself (no matter how you handle it), and yes, the UAW is a part of the problem but not enough of it to make GM right simply by ridding themselves of it.
There is no "better" bailout. It doesn't exist. History has shown car companies that get bailed out require repeated frequent bailing (look at Chrysler).
Or is it only important when from the foreign companies with the perfect reliability records?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
How are they working for Korea, Japan, China? Seem to be keeping out the US products and controlling access to those Asian markets, while they have undercut the US producers with many tools for decades, including improper valuation of their currencies relative to the US Dollar.
When you show that other countries aren't using protective measures and other tools to keep the US makers out, in the past and now, I'll consider the argument against our slapping on protection today.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just watched a preview about a documentary coming out called:
"Death by China" The producer claims our trade deficit with them is responsible for a 2.5% loss of GDP every year. He claims this is the biggest contributor to our economic problems.
Some interesting facts: The US lost 6 million manufacturing jobs in the last 10 years resulting in the closure of 50,000 factories.
Oh and one of the greatest US companies of all time..Apple. They employ 26,000 people here and 700,000 in China.
What percentage of cars sold in Germany, Japan, or Korea are imports?
I'm sure it is very low.
This would have the maujor downside of killing many of the imports we get from Korea and Japan, considering they restrict imports from us MUCH more than we restrict their imports Outside of trucks anyway, and I think it's time to dump that Chicken Tax, if we're going to have protective trade tarrifs, just mirror the ones people are applying to our products. What's good for the goose and all.
Anyone with a good memory will remember that a year ago the imports had no inventory due to the effects of the tsunami, so GM's sales were artificially inflated.
That's how they reduced their inventory stockpiles.
Hemi came and went. A different engine with the same marketing name exists today, but it didn't survive uninterrupted like the small block has.
Ford flathead has been gone for how long now?
Wankel died. Again. Never succeeded, to be honest. I've owned 3 Mazdas, but it's laughable to compare the multiples failures of the Wankel to the small block's success. A joke.
Honda's CVCC was neat in its day, but a footnote compared to the small block Chevy's dominance.
VW flat four died long ago. They abandoned both the boxer layout and air cooled.
The small block lives on. It's the most successful internal combustion engine in history. Nothing else comes close.
Apparently, asbestos.
I think what you MEANT to say was "historically significant, still in production, and made by GM." :shades:
No argument there! LOL
Others do the same, though.
Those other engines came and went. The designs ultimately failed for one reason or another.
1955 to 2013. Can you really say that's not historically significant with a straight face? C'mon....
What SB from 1955 is in production today?
The current small blocks have very little in common from those made 60 years ago except for still being considered small blocks.
.
'72-present in the USA, probably longer in other markets.
Porsche flat 6 might qualify but purists will say not since they stopped making air cooled, so maybe not.
True, but the only thing they likely have in common with a 1955 265 v8 is the 4.4" bore center spacing and being OHV.
From my earlier link to a GM fan site that had charts and graphs copied over from the WSJ, the answer in 2008 and 2009, anyway, was yes...by a comfortable margin.
I do think it's obvious, inside and out of this site even, that GM is facing a PR problem since the bankruptcy, about taking the bailout, which really doesn't have to do with people's satisfaction with their products. But it always cracks me up to hear people complain about the bailout, and then go right out in protest and buy a car from a North Korean, Japanese, or German company. Short memories and not 'big picture' thinking IMHO only.
Personally, I was unhappy with the forced reduction in dealer outlets. My nearby dealer--who treated me great--was one that left. A huge dealer organization was always a GM strong point IMHO.