I just feel that they don't have my best interests at heart. Their cars are dull and uninviting. The new 2010 Ford Fiesta offers more but not enough as the 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore B0 does. Plus, the B0 watches out for the environment, looks cool, re-charges automatically with regenerative braking and from solar panels on the roof and grille. Cool technology. Chev feels they have to up the ante on the Volt and charge $40,000+.
for Chrysler to go down since they screwed me over with a lemon they never offered any repair (or payment) assitance on despite continual repair costs.
I knew they would take Daimler down, and they did, but luckily for them, they abandoned ship just before the hull cracked in half (but the deadly holes in the structure were already there).
I knew they'd rock Cerebus and that they were crazy to buy Chrysler, and that predictuion has come true. Chrysler gave me the middle finger when they kept charging me for repairs after warranty, and I'll give each and everyone of them my middle finger when they ask for a handout. Shame on them for asking for handouts from the gov't. If my vote has anything to say, it'll be a big fat NO to the BIG 3. NO NO NO!!!!!
You won't get my money again as a consumer!!! And I'll be damned if you get your grubby little greedy hands on my tax money as a tax payer and American.
Frankly, and in all honesty, I think giving the Taliban a loan would be a better idea than giving the Big 3 a loan. Truthfully, when you think about it, the BIG 3 has wrecked more destruction and negativity towards Americans than Bin Laden has. The Big 3 have been ruining America for decades!!! Bin Laden since 9/11/01.
Bin Laden cost us a few buildings, BIG 3 have lost BILLIONS and BILLIONS year after year. Big 3 are a drain on our society; equivalent to being a terrorist to my happiness.
Now... the RESPONSE to the terrorist attacks is a whole different ball game and are things we as a country chose to do (or at Least Bush chose) in response, and was not really Bin Laden's fault. We can blame him, but our over-reaction is our own current administration's/govt's failure.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
you are spot on, man. When I go car shopping (and the Internet has made it so much of a "hands-on" experience) I go to what will serve my wife and I's needs.
I also like something sporty(our '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS is a good example of this)but since about a year ago I am also shopping for a car that will not damage the environment and will not be dependent on foreign oil. I have found this with the 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore B0.
The Big 2 1/2 can just falter. Let the natural economic climate take care of them. The thing is, if they don't get bailed out can you imagine how they'll complain to Obama?
"You're gonna bail out AIG and not us?"
"You're gonna bail out Citi (the U.S's largest bank) and not us?"
Well, in defense of Obama, he could use the following excuses:
1) AIG bailout was Bush's idea. 2) Letting the Big 3 fail was Bush's idea (although I know the Big 3 helped him get elected, but this is one area he should break his promises and give them the middle finger like the rest of Americans outside of MI. We could have a Gov't run manufacturing base and It coudln't POSSIBLY be any WORSE than the Big 3. forget the Big 3! Hasta la Vista baby! (in the words of a Republican governor in CA) 3) Bear Stearns bailout was Bush's idea
And so on and so forth.
Obama doesn't have to take any of the blame for anything that happens prior to Jan 20th in 2009 in my opinion.
Bush can take all of the credit (blame?) for what he's done during his term in office.
And my 2 cents is that no one should have been given a bailout, not AIG, not the banks, not the financial institutions, NO ONE.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'll add The Wall at the Vietnam Memorial which now is the single most visited site in DC. It's a simple and extremely effective memorial. If you're of that generation someone you knew is on that wall.
Think about your past reactions to the situations you were presented-like a rat in a maze who was given an open doorway..to a hatchet.
What has happened in the last eight or more years. Concentration of wealth for some individuals and their entities. Did you get yours. they get yours, take a tax deduction, and get richer next year. While the fear is now deflation, how does keeping the printing presses working overtime not produce a debased currency and hyper-inflation or just ...
Obama gave a press conf everyday this week. He says we need to get snapped back into a good economy. The Bush disaster we need to climb out of: 1. Unemployment at Bush pre-re-election was 5.5%, now it is 6.2%. BFD. 2. Sunbelt Homes tripled in value and then fell back to now being doubled in value. Lots more equity there now than in 2004. 3. Americans have cut gas consumption by healthy margins and have a more fuel efficient fleet than ever 4. Many people I know have their income up considerably under Bush and yet don't pay much more in taxes. 5. American auto industry still suffering the effects of subsidized foreign competition, especially since NAFTA, which is governed unfairly. 6. Productivity and competitiveness VS the rest of the word is at near record levels. 7. Interest rates are very low.
I see the disaster as a media/politically incited loss of confidence paid for by the DNC. All they really have to do is look at the glass as half full. Stocks are based on confidence. They didn't mean for it to work as well as it did to tear Bush down. They also didn't see the $4 gas thing, which gave it too much extra push.
3 million people a year are added to the population of America, and for the most part, we live a first world life with cars and houses with electricity. Are there any IPOD, pay tv, or cell phone deprivations out there? All that growth is seen as a tremendous market by the rest of the world. This -4 M cars per year won't last.
1. Unemployment at Bush pre-re-election was 5.5%, now it is 6.2%. BFD. 2. Sunbelt Homes tripled in value and then fell back to now being doubled in value. Lots more equity there now than in 2004. 3. Americans have cut gas consumption by healthy margins and have a more fuel efficient fleet than ever 4. Many people I know have their income up considerably under Bush and yet don't pay much more in taxes. 5. American auto industry still suffering the effects of subsidized foreign competition, especially since NAFTA, which is governed unfairly. 6. Productivity and competitiveness VS the rest of the word is at near record levels. 7. Interest rates are very low.
1. What does BFD stand for? Why use 2004 rates rather than 2000 when Bush was elected? Suspicious!!!!! 2. Homes only increased in value because banks held interest rates artificially low. 3. Gas consumption was cut but gas expenditure is way up!!! 4. While taxes haven't gone up for many, the only people who have had incomes rise are in the top 1%. 99% of the population has had income completely stagnant for 8 years (when considering true inflation). 5. No subsidies exist for Foreign automakers; this is false. 6. Based on what? 7. Interest rates are low, but inflation is sky high!!!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
about domestically made vehicles are beginning to surface in here, eh? They are really coming out of the woodwork now.
But in a sense this discussion is not even about what the domestics have done in the past. It is about whether there is any way in which they could totally remake themselves in order to be globally competitive. And whether they could do so fast enough.
There ARE good arguments for subsidizing a domestic manufacturing concern, as much of the world does. And as manufacturing concerns go, automobiles is a big one.
I still say the bankruptcy court is the only way these companies can effect the needed changes quickly enough. It should be possible to support them on the back end, as they emerge from this reorganization. THAT would be money well spent.
I guess what I am saying is, their current slow spiral to death guarantees the death at the end. They need to make a sudden and dramatic set of changes all at once to ensure their future. So, bankruptcy now, bailout money later when it can really help.
I no longer believe that GM's turnaround plan, as a for instance, would produce any profits for them before the middle of the next decade, and that's too far away to be useful. The other two are pretty much in the same boat with their turnaround plans.
I saw in a headline that Gettelfinger is beginning to see sense, and one of the first concessions the UAW might be willing to make is the elimination of the Jobs Bank. Well yeah Ron, that's the big "DUH!". What else have you got?
If all the people involved would just see sense, accept reality, and reduce their compensations and benefits to industry norms (including executives), 2 of the domestics would probably be OK without either a bankruptcy OR a bailout. GM would still be in trouble because of excessive dealers and brands - harder to eliminate. Use a fraction of the bailout money to kill 4000 or 5000 GM dealers and about four brands (Oldsmobile cost, what, a billion $?), and GM could be in very good shape with the other items in place that I mentioned above.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My biggest fear is that the Congress will end up giving the bailout money without strong enough concessions/restructuring, and our tax money goes down the drain with Detroit 3 failures just postponed 6-12 months.
I think that Chrysler should be excluded from any bailout monies. It is essentially DOA right now and there is nothing in the product line which suggests that it has any future. A couple of Jeep nameplates and very reduced minivan & RAM volumes are the only assets of any value IMO. It will be a shame that the Cummins franchise will have to go away.
GM has several potentially good assets that can make money when freeded from its 20th Century labor mistakes. Cadillac is worthwhile in NA. Silverado is solid but it has to be stuctured to be profitable in reduced volumes. The lambda crossovers are solid but 4 is too many The Malibu is very competitive, it needs to be grown. The Corvette. The 2-Mode hybrids are every bit as good as the other three players if only they had been brought to market 5 yrs earlier. The Volt and the E-Flex technology needs to be kept in order to help advance us into the next decade. The Aveo is very mediocre but it does serve a purpose. It needs to be updated soon. The Cruze from Europe and Asia needs to replace the Cobalt yesterday. The HHR serves a good purpose.
OTOH all the following should be killed off... all BOF SUVs big and midsized; ditto the ColoCanyon; ditto GMC, Buick in NA, Pontiac, Saab and Saturn franchises;
GM's market share gets cut to 17-18% but it's a solid profitable segment that can make $Billions with the proper controls.
Ford IMO is best positioned but it too has dead limbs that need pruning namely Lincoln and Mercury and all the dealers associated with them. The Ford name should be the sole focus.
It's solid profitable assets that are worth keeping in NA are.. ..the F-Series trucks obviously but in much reduced volume; ..the Edge and the Escape...both should have hybrid options ..the Fusion with its hybrid option ..the Eco-boost technology for the future ..the Mustang ..The Focus or whichever Euro-model replaces it. ..Volvo possibly
Ford's marketshare gets cut to 7-8% but this too is rock solid.
Flexible work rules or an actual non-union workplace may be a necessity for both of them.
I got it after a real haggle for $26k plus TTL. One and a half years later I decided I wanted an SUV and drove the 2007 Denali Yukon. I cannot remember the exact figures. It was over $40k. My PU was perfect and I had added an aluminum roll-top over he bed for $1300. This was the same dealer I bought the truck from. It had 13k highway miles and he offered me $16k in trade. I stood up and told him that was an insult to my intelligence and walked out. I listed it on Craigslist and a fellow from LA came down and gave me $23k cash for the truck
wow you sure took a huge loss on that that GMC, $3000. Just out of curiosity how much do you think your sequoia would be worth now? do you think you would only lose $3000 on that gas pig?
I wonder if the government is as focused on rescuing the Detroit makers as much as just prolonging their demise until after the current bank and insurance fiasco is resolved? Bankruptcy will assist cleaning up the Detroit mess, but often the best laid plans go to crap quickly in bankruptcy.
I think probably most everyone on these boards has had a bad experience with something from Detroit, particularly if it was from the 70's through 90's. They weren't too customer focused then, and I don't think they still come anywhere near Honda in stepping up to the plate. If you screw up and try to make amends, people will usually forgive you. But if you stiff a customer they have long memories.
I think that Chrysler should be excluded from any bailout monies.
Definitely a bailout should be banned; if money is loaned to Chrysler, I hope they have the sense to make Cerebus responsible for paying the money back, if Chrysler blows thru the $ and then fails. In fact since Chrysler is private, I would think that we should hold to the fact that Chrysler should loan the money from Cerebus. But at least a loan to Chrysler, because of Cerebus, has more chance of getting paid back if written correctly, then a loan to Ford or GM.
Or Cerebus should sell Chrysler for whatever it can get. Let Cerebus's owners take the loss, not the taxpayer!
Just out of curiosity how much do you think your sequoia would be worth now? do you think you would only lose $3000 on that gas pig?
I only see one like mine for sale within 200 miles. They are asking $2000 less than I paid new for mine a year ago. So to answer your question I would probably accept a $3000 loss if I found a diesel SUV I like that is better than the Sequoia. Right now the only ones on my list are the BMW X5d and the Mercedes GL & ML320 CDI. Oh mine has the NAV and Entertainment which the one listed does not have. Ask me if I am worried. With gas under $2 I would not hesitate going on a long trip with the Sequoia. And yes it is a gas guzzling pig. What real high mileage SUV options do Americans have?
Looks like in a few months it will be fewer. Not that GM or Ford has anything I want at present. I would consider an Expedition with a small diesel engine.
The biggest concession is a complete change in management. We do not want a management who got them where they are today. We need a dynamic new management that can make the necessary decisions to create the future.
I think Cerberus is in the best position right now. They may be waiting to see what happens with GM. They wanted to unload the automotive to GM and get all of GMAC. Seems they have smarter people than GM. Including an ex VP Dan Quayle.
You can't blame them for lining up at the trough with the other two. Bailouts are not really loans. They are giving OUR money to keep these companies afloat. We are also loaning TRILLIONS to banks to keep them going. I am surprised the printing presses are not worn out.
"Bankruptcy sucks as a way to achieve real business resolution." As an example the story offers Delphi, a company 4 years into the process of bankruptcy with no clear end in sight. GM's size, and challenges, are far larger than Delphi's, and the complexities involved in using bankruptcy to solve GM's problems are difficult to even fathom.
What's truly troubling is the number of longshots we're looking at."
In other news, "The three big domestic automakers are now saying they are working jointly on a new hybrid car. It runs on a combination of state and federal bailout money." (Leno via AutoObserver)
What they SHOULD carpool to DC in is one of those old GMC motorhomes that the execs rode around in in the mid '70's. FWD w/ 455 Toronado drivetrains. That will show durability. 35 yrs old and still running strong!!!
bail outs in the financial sector are/were needed to protect mortgaged homes. i realize there has been a lot of abuse there. people still need a roof over their heads. autos are a tougher sell, because they are lower on the food chain. even if the auto company bail outs do not ultimately save the companies, they will cushion the blow. if approved, hopefully the money will be used wisely. my domestic vehicles have never given a lot of trouble, so i see no reason to not keep buying them. jmo.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
No, going through Chapter 11 would not be easy for GM (or the other 1.5), but making these money burning companies profitable isn't going to be easy, no matter how you slice it. Chapter 11 is the only way the DESPERATELY NEEDED CHANGES (re-structuring contracts, and drastically down-sizing) will happen. A bail-out will not force the Big 3 to make these changes , and will only delay the inevitable.
No they won't be able to pat it back and no they don't deserve it.
Why GIVE it to them? To stave off a quick melt-down in the Dow to 5,000 this winter when they declare bankruptcy. $25 billion is 0.5 percent of what we're throwing out ($5 trillion dollar bail-out) to save the financial sector.
This $25 billion will give our economy the chance to stabilize by late next year and we'll be better able to take the hit of the Big 3's 2010 bankruptcy which is inevitable.
It's a done deal. They'll get the $$ by January and the other 99.5% will be going to the big wheels in finance.
I see the disaster as a media/politically incited loss of confidence paid for by the DNC.
Get a grip on some reality. As a Republican, I still know GWB is a disaster. Torture. Loss of credibility. Loss of respect world-wide. Invasion of independent country uninvolved in 9-11.
It looks to me like the "socialist" Obama is more open to demanding a realistic restructuring plan from the D3 than the "less government" GWB. Thank god.
Karl also says that a successful restructuring with the government as the automakers' partner will require a "superhuman effort from everyone" and "more than a little luck". I would say that's the understatement of the year. No-one in government or in the executive suites at any of these 3 automakers has ever shown any sign that they can think in the long term, let alone act consistently over a long period to achieve a long-term goal.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If the car industry is headed for 11.5 million units next year, it is not going to be possible for any of the Detroit 3 to hold on, unless perhaps there is much less competition for the few buyers that are out there.
Chrysler's financial situation is hard to know exactly, but it seems that they're very poorly positioned in terms of their product portfolio. They have essentially no overseas presence, which means they don't have the ability to drive sales into a growing market like China. I think you'd have to look very hard at any business case around a Chrysler bailout. Allowing Chrysler to fail would free up some buyers, and probably a lot of them would stay with the domestics.
GM needs to figure out how to erase about 5000 dealers and 4 or 5 divisions. Having dealers out there selling 10 cars a month isn't helping anybody's cause. It seems unlikely that current management will drive this type of reorg and maybe only Chapter 11 can make it happen.
Ford is a bit easier to support. Bill Ford already fired himself as CEO and Ford has made hard decisions about driving production down. They still have too many products and too many dealers, though, and their hybrids are late to market.
Allowing Chrysler to fail would free up some buyers, and probably a lot of them would stay with the domestics.
What would Ford or GM have to offer the Jeep buyer? Right now the only pseudo competitor to the Wrangler is the Toyota FJ Cruiser and it may be scrapped. Dodge Cummins PU owners may grudgingly buy a GM or Ford PU. Mini Vans, who cares they are all about the same. Chrysler still holds the trump card in GMAC. That seems to be a big problem at GM getting anyone to finance their products.
Ford is going to be OK with plants like the one in Brazil. I got a feeling that GM or Ford could scrap their US holdings and make money in the rest of the World. The US has them so tied up with back breaking contracts and horrible regulations.
GM shed one dinosaur in Delphi. Now it is time for them to file for C11 and get rid of the rest of their dead weight.
Well, I'm for that! They should also fire all the execs from AIG, Citi, and whoever else who got them in the messes they are in! No golden parachutes, but anvils in a backpack! I wouldn't care if these former CEOs ended up begging for quarters on Chestnut Street after all their assets are confiscated.
...if the Big Three just simply shut down for a year - meaning there would be few, if any 2009 models? Heck, things aren't even good for the imports with cars piling up on the docks. They could simply make a go of it with just their NA plants. I see the economy as a gluttonous person who has gorged for years on credit and now has severe indigestion. Let the economy digest what it has already eaten.
My statement was about the economy and only the economy. Your counter contains nothing about the economy. All you talk is world politics.
I stated a bunch of realities in my list of 7 items. You have not countered any of the 7 points with any truth. Seven tenths of one percent of unemployment increase in four years is disaster? Yes, with enough spin I guess!
To spin the destruction of America and now hope to say it was contrived, we are really OK, is a bad plan. But it was the plan. $4 gas thew a tire iron in the spokes of that plan. The big 3 are hurt by $4 gas too. They are also hurt by the confidence killing plan that was contrived and executed against our country. Obama owes them the bailout because he got all the union vote and his 'It's the economy stupid' plan has caused their further demise.
We have to spend our way out of the mess some say. We will have huge debts. W inherited the tech bubble burst when people carry stock losses onto their tax returns for years. It killed the budget along with 9-11 and the hurricanes. Now Obama inherits the mortgage meltdown and all that does to future federal revenue intake. He has made part of the mess and now has to figure out how to pull the plane out of the dive. For 2 years he kept yelling that the plane was in a dive. Now he's the pilot and the dive has become real. He was expecting the instruments to be found to be broken and the plane was actually climbing.
They should also fire all the execs from AIG, Citi, and whoever else who got them in the messes they are in! No golden parachutes, but anvils in a backpack! It's not going to happen because fat cats covers and protects each other. If Joe Schmoe makes a financial mistake nobody will bailout him, but if CEO makes a financial mistake he gets medical insurance, pension & etc.
Sad, but true. If I screwed my employer over as badly as the CEOs of AIG, Citi, etc. I'd probably end up in the trunk of my car which would probably be found parked under the Ben Franklin Bridge or the weeds near the airport.
I stated a bunch of realities in my list of 7 items.
I don't have time to go thru your 7 points and verify the numbers, but I certainly give you the benefit of the doubt on most though, as you have a history of posting reliable and sensible views.
But I will add that though you may be right on those, there are many indicators pointing to serious, serious problems. Without going into specifics as the holiday errands beckon, I would like to say that we've been thru several weekends lately where the Treasury and the President are on the phone on Sun. nights. Well it's the equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And when you see the Treasury offering $700B 2 months ago, and $800B the other day, and the Fed cutting interst rates below 1% (they can't go much lower!), I would say the financial folks are desperate.
And on a personal basis, I know many people who need next week's paycheck to pay the bills. They no longer have any home equity. Their 401K is down 40%. Food is up 20% this year. And most people around here receive local tax bills that are 10% higher EACH YEAR. And very few people think they'll get the social security amount they are currently promised.
If you still think the fundamentals are good, then I nominate you for Optimist of the Year.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler need to sit down with the unions, suppliers and banks, and need to say "This is how much is coming in, and that's how much can go out; we need to adjust our budget to make that work."
Ford is going to be OK with plants like the one in Brazil. I got a feeling that GM or Ford could scrap their US holdings and make money in the rest of the World. The US has them so tied up with back breaking contracts and horrible regulations.
I think you got it! I think the Big 3 would love to get out of their commitments in the U.S.A. They could make money if they were only producing and selling overseas. Of course, if they stick around and can collect another $25 billion, then why not!
One other thought, why doesn't Mexico and Brazil come up with some of the $25 billion?
If I screwed my employer over as badly as the CEOs of AIG, Citi, etc.
It is perception of worth. The Disney board thought that Michael Ovitz was going to make them lots of money. He turned out to be a bumbling idiot with a good lawyer writing his contract. It cost Disney $140,000,000 to get rid of him. Franklin Raines as CEO, took $100s of millions in bonuses from Fannie Mae. Rather than have a scandal in that pseudo corporation they forced him to retire. He got to keep at least $110,000,000 of his ill got gains. Both examples are what our executives in this country have evolved into. I believe any company that receives tax dollars to survive should have automatic caps on salaries, bonuses and stock options.
I liked McCain's idea that those executives would be limited to pay equal to the highest public offices.
why doesn't Mexico and Brazil come up with some of the $25 billion?
I imagine they did give some kind of incentives to build there. Are they making money in those locations would be the question to ask? I know GM has asked Germany to bolster their Opel division. Canada has a lot to lose also with GM and Ford closing up shop.
tired_old_dave: What has happened in the last eight or more years. Concentration of wealth for some individuals and their entities.
This has been occurring since the early 1970s. It didn't start in 2000.
tired_old_dave: While the fear is now deflation, how does keeping the printing presses working overtime not produce a debased currency and hyper-inflation or just ...
Inflation occurs when too much money is chasing the same number of goods. So much wealth has evaporated over the past year that these injections of cash won't replace it.
Recent actions of the federal government show that someone has learned from history - more specifically, the history of this country from 1929 to 1933.
The stock market crash didn't cause the Great Depression. It was a necessary correction to rampant speculation in the stock market, which began around 1927.
Several factors turned what should have been a short, sharp recession into the Great Depression.
The first was the Hawley Smoot Tariff passed in 1930, which was designed to "protect" American industries, but ended up choking international trade. The market for American goods dried up, and the economic downturn spread to Europe. There was a thriving export market for American cars at this time (particularly for luxury marques like Packard and Cadillac), but foreign countries slammed that door shut in retaliation for the American passage of Hawley Smoot. The American manufacturers thus faced the loss of export markets at the same time that domestic demand was slackening.
The second was a goverment concerned about inflation, when the real problem was deflation. The Federal Reserve choked off the money supply at a crucial time. It was akin to treating someone for a fever after he had frozen to death. This is why the government has been injecting cash into the economy.
Another factor was a rising tax burden between 1929 and 1932. Note that even Obama has backed off on his plan to immediately repeal the Bush tax cuts (now his plan is to let them expire as scheduled), because he has advisers smart enough to realize that government should not raise taxes during an economic downturn.
As for bailing out financial firms and not automakers - the simple fact is that financial firms are more important to the economy than, say, General Motors. Again, our government has learned from history. The collapse of several financial institutions during the early 1930s was a significant factor in worsening the economic downturn.
That is not to say that more oversight shouldn't accompany the government aid.
At this point, the best option for General Motors is some sort of pre-packaged, government-approved bankruptcy plan that allows the company to use the tools available in a bankruptcy filing to cut costs and slim down without an actual filing, which would scare away customers.
A valid plan, but I would disagree with two points.
One, GM should keep its full-size SUVs. There is still a market for those vehicles, and GM's are the best of the bunch. GM's mistake wasn't in making those vehicles, it was in betting the farm on them
Two, Lincoln is still viable, especially as Ford works to combine its dealer network. Around here, several Lincoln Mercury dealers have closed down, and one Ford dealer has taken on the franchise.
If Ford and Lincoln are combined at the dealer level (as they were, ironically, prior to World War II), then dealers will have Fords to appeal to the mass market, and Lincolns to appeal to more traditional, upscale buyers.
One, GM should keep its full-size SUVs. There is still a market for those vehicles, and GM's are the best of the bunch. GM's mistake wasn't in making those vehicles, it was in betting the farm on them
I agree, the Suburban has been around for decades. It has survived all the ups and downs. As long as someone has a family and needs to tow something, they will have a market. Sure this can be served by a crew cab pickup, but the pick up still can't haul over 5-6 people (bed doesn't count).
If Ford and Lincoln are combined at the dealer level (as they were, ironically, prior to World War II), then dealers will have Fords to appeal to the mass market, and Lincolns to appeal to more traditional, upscale buyers.
That makes a lot of sense to me. I was at the Honda dealer this week and the Acura dealer is across the street. I would have liked to have peeked into an Acura, but I wasn't going to walk over there.
I bet Ford could manage quite a few upsales by having Lincolns in the showroom.
Of course there will be guys like me who go in to look at a MKZ and decide that the Focus is pretty darn nice for half the price.
"Rumors howling in Detroit's November winds point to brand-burning as one of the primary ways the companies plan to demonstrate to Congress they will be able to sustain their operations in a U.S. auto market that is expected to be decidedly unkind for all of 2009 and possibly well into 2010."
I wouldn't say American CEOs have evolved. I'd say they either devolved or mutated into something!
I agree and good point. Driver100 Plan is to limit Presidents pay to 15X top paying salary in the company. Example: If top class worker makes $60,000, Pres gets $900,000 Max. Other execs top out at 10 X = $600,000 Could have bonus plans like extra percentage based on increase in sales of same percentage. I don't believe too many execs actually have a value of $100 million dollars a year...no human being is that good.
steve: Of course there will be guys like me who go in to look at a MKZ and decide that the Focus is pretty darn nice for half the price.
At this point, for Ford, a sale is a sale...
As for the article on GM and Ford eliminating brands - I would disagree with some points.
At Ford, the Mercury unit has been a black hole for decades and simply must go by any rational assessment.
Mercury doesn't bring anything new to the customer, but the vehicles are basically Fords with different grilles, headlights and taillights. The investment to create a Mercury from a Ford is next-to-nothing, and the vehicles receive virtually no national advertising support anymore, so the division isn't really costing Ford much money. From a financial standpoint, it's not a black hole.
The company has stressed it has faith in the Lincoln luxury division - and it would be hard to suggest Ford forge ahead with no premium-market presence - but in coldly clinical terms (the kind that might be necessary to mollify a Congress running on high-horsepower skepticism of Big Three management acumen), Lincoln doesn't work and hasn't since the 1960s.
Lincoln was quite successful during the 1970s, when it set sales records with the "standard" Continentals and Marks, and again during the mid-1980s and early 1990s, when the Town Car was selling very well.
I'd ditch the MKZ, develop the MKS and upcoming MKT, keep the Navigator and figure out how to build a rear-wheel-drive Lincoln off of the next Mustang platform. And either kill the Town Car or update it with new styling, a better chassis and a MUCH more luxurious interior.
I think you got it! I think the Big 3 would love to get out of their commitments in the U.S.A. They could make money if they were only producing and selling overseas.
Could they shut down in the US, continue operating overseas, and then a few years later return to the US? I wonder if they could start fresh without UAW contracts if they "cleaned up" in this way, or if they would still have contractual obligations?
Of course none of this matters if they go BK anyway.
I think that parts of Chrysler can be sold off for some minimal values. The Jeep name alone along with the Wrangler would fit somewhere inside Ford for example. Or maybe it would just be a division of Mahindra Motors from India.
The minivan business might fit into Ford or it might just as well disappear.
Comments
Right. :sick:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I knew they would take Daimler down, and they did, but luckily for them, they abandoned ship just before the hull cracked in half (but the deadly holes in the structure were already there).
I knew they'd rock Cerebus and that they were crazy to buy Chrysler, and that predictuion has come true. Chrysler gave me the middle finger when they kept charging me for repairs after warranty, and I'll give each and everyone of them my middle finger when they ask for a handout. Shame on them for asking for handouts from the gov't. If my vote has anything to say, it'll be a big fat NO to the BIG 3. NO NO NO!!!!!
You won't get my money again as a consumer!!! And I'll be damned if you get your grubby little greedy hands on my tax money as a tax payer and American.
Frankly, and in all honesty, I think giving the Taliban a loan would be a better idea than giving the Big 3 a loan. Truthfully, when you think about it, the BIG 3 has wrecked more destruction and negativity towards Americans than Bin Laden has. The Big 3 have been ruining America for decades!!! Bin Laden since 9/11/01.
Bin Laden cost us a few buildings, BIG 3 have lost BILLIONS and BILLIONS year after year. Big 3 are a drain on our society; equivalent to being a terrorist to my happiness.
Now... the RESPONSE to the terrorist attacks is a whole different ball game and are things we as a country chose to do (or at Least Bush chose) in response, and was not really Bin Laden's fault. We can blame him, but our over-reaction is our own current administration's/govt's failure.
I also like something sporty(our '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS is a good example of this)but since about a year ago I am also shopping for a car that will not damage the environment and will not be dependent on foreign oil. I have found this with the 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore B0.
The Big 2 1/2 can just falter. Let the natural economic climate take care of them. The thing is, if they don't get bailed out can you imagine how they'll complain to Obama?
"You're gonna bail out AIG and not us?"
"You're gonna bail out Citi (the U.S's largest bank) and not us?"
Can't cha just hear 'em whinin' now?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
http://www.insideautomotive.com/
Goldman again, fed pledges, nissan pullout, unsold cars piling up in LA, imf - worse to come.
1) AIG bailout was Bush's idea.
2) Letting the Big 3 fail was Bush's idea (although I know the Big 3 helped him get elected, but this is one area he should break his promises and give them the middle finger like the rest of Americans outside of MI. We could have a Gov't run manufacturing base and It coudln't POSSIBLY be any WORSE than the Big 3. forget the Big 3! Hasta la Vista baby! (in the words of a Republican governor in CA)
3) Bear Stearns bailout was Bush's idea
And so on and so forth.
Obama doesn't have to take any of the blame for anything that happens prior to Jan 20th in 2009 in my opinion.
Bush can take all of the credit (blame?) for what he's done during his term in office.
And my 2 cents is that no one should have been given a bailout, not AIG, not the banks, not the financial institutions, NO ONE.
What has happened in the last eight or more years. Concentration of wealth for some individuals and their entities. Did you get yours. they get yours, take a tax deduction, and get richer next year. While the fear is now deflation, how does keeping the printing presses working overtime not produce a debased currency and hyper-inflation or just ...
1. Unemployment at Bush pre-re-election was 5.5%, now it is 6.2%. BFD.
2. Sunbelt Homes tripled in value and then fell back to now being doubled in value. Lots more equity there now than in 2004.
3. Americans have cut gas consumption by healthy margins and have a more fuel efficient fleet than ever
4. Many people I know have their income up considerably under Bush and yet don't pay much more in taxes.
5. American auto industry still suffering the effects of subsidized foreign competition, especially since NAFTA, which is governed unfairly.
6. Productivity and competitiveness VS the rest of the word is at near record levels.
7. Interest rates are very low.
I see the disaster as a media/politically incited loss of confidence paid for by the DNC. All they really have to do is look at the glass as half full. Stocks are based on confidence. They didn't mean for it to work as well as it did to tear Bush down. They also didn't see the $4 gas thing, which gave it too much extra push.
3 million people a year are added to the population of America, and for the most part, we live a first world life with cars and houses with electricity. Are there any IPOD, pay tv, or cell phone deprivations out there? All that growth is seen as a tremendous market by the rest of the world. This -4 M cars per year won't last.
2. Sunbelt Homes tripled in value and then fell back to now being doubled in value. Lots more equity there now than in 2004.
3. Americans have cut gas consumption by healthy margins and have a more fuel efficient fleet than ever
4. Many people I know have their income up considerably under Bush and yet don't pay much more in taxes.
5. American auto industry still suffering the effects of subsidized foreign competition, especially since NAFTA, which is governed unfairly.
6. Productivity and competitiveness VS the rest of the word is at near record levels.
7. Interest rates are very low.
1. What does BFD stand for? Why use 2004 rates rather than 2000 when Bush was elected? Suspicious!!!!!
2. Homes only increased in value because banks held interest rates artificially low.
3. Gas consumption was cut but gas expenditure is way up!!!
4. While taxes haven't gone up for many, the only people who have had incomes rise are in the top 1%. 99% of the population has had income completely stagnant for 8 years (when considering true inflation).
5. No subsidies exist for Foreign automakers; this is false.
6. Based on what?
7. Interest rates are low, but inflation is sky high!!!
Finger pointing is one thing, but we're asking if you favor a bailout in here.
But in a sense this discussion is not even about what the domestics have done in the past. It is about whether there is any way in which they could totally remake themselves in order to be globally competitive. And whether they could do so fast enough.
There ARE good arguments for subsidizing a domestic manufacturing concern, as much of the world does. And as manufacturing concerns go, automobiles is a big one.
I still say the bankruptcy court is the only way these companies can effect the needed changes quickly enough. It should be possible to support them on the back end, as they emerge from this reorganization. THAT would be money well spent.
I guess what I am saying is, their current slow spiral to death guarantees the death at the end. They need to make a sudden and dramatic set of changes all at once to ensure their future. So, bankruptcy now, bailout money later when it can really help.
I no longer believe that GM's turnaround plan, as a for instance, would produce any profits for them before the middle of the next decade, and that's too far away to be useful. The other two are pretty much in the same boat with their turnaround plans.
I saw in a headline that Gettelfinger is beginning to see sense, and one of the first concessions the UAW might be willing to make is the elimination of the Jobs Bank. Well yeah Ron, that's the big "DUH!". What else have you got?
If all the people involved would just see sense, accept reality, and reduce their compensations and benefits to industry norms (including executives), 2 of the domestics would probably be OK without either a bankruptcy OR a bailout. GM would still be in trouble because of excessive dealers and brands - harder to eliminate. Use a fraction of the bailout money to kill 4000 or 5000 GM dealers and about four brands (Oldsmobile cost, what, a billion $?), and GM could be in very good shape with the other items in place that I mentioned above.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My biggest fear is that the Congress will end up giving the bailout money without strong enough concessions/restructuring, and our tax money goes down the drain with Detroit 3 failures just postponed 6-12 months.
I think that Chrysler should be excluded from any bailout monies. It is essentially DOA right now and there is nothing in the product line which suggests that it has any future. A couple of Jeep nameplates and very reduced minivan & RAM volumes are the only assets of any value IMO. It will be a shame that the Cummins franchise will have to go away.
GM has several potentially good assets that can make money when freeded from its 20th Century labor mistakes.
Cadillac is worthwhile in NA.
Silverado is solid but it has to be stuctured to be profitable in reduced volumes.
The lambda crossovers are solid but 4 is too many
The Malibu is very competitive, it needs to be grown.
The Corvette.
The 2-Mode hybrids are every bit as good as the other three players if only they had been brought to market 5 yrs earlier.
The Volt and the E-Flex technology needs to be kept in order to help advance us into the next decade.
The Aveo is very mediocre but it does serve a purpose. It needs to be updated soon.
The Cruze from Europe and Asia needs to replace the Cobalt yesterday.
The HHR serves a good purpose.
OTOH all the following should be killed off...
all BOF SUVs big and midsized;
ditto the ColoCanyon;
ditto GMC, Buick in NA, Pontiac, Saab and Saturn franchises;
GM's market share gets cut to 17-18% but it's a solid profitable segment that can make $Billions with the proper controls.
Ford IMO is best positioned but it too has dead limbs that need pruning namely Lincoln and Mercury and all the dealers associated with them. The Ford name should be the sole focus.
It's solid profitable assets that are worth keeping in NA are..
..the F-Series trucks obviously but in much reduced volume;
..the Edge and the Escape...both should have hybrid options
..the Fusion with its hybrid option
..the Eco-boost technology for the future
..the Mustang
..The Focus or whichever Euro-model replaces it.
..Volvo possibly
Ford's marketshare gets cut to 7-8% but this too is rock solid.
Flexible work rules or an actual non-union workplace may be a necessity for both of them.
wow you sure took a huge loss on that that GMC, $3000. Just out of curiosity how much do you think your sequoia would be worth now? do you think you would only lose $3000 on that gas pig?
I think probably most everyone on these boards has had a bad experience with something from Detroit, particularly if it was from the 70's through 90's. They weren't too customer focused then, and I don't think they still come anywhere near Honda in stepping up to the plate. If you screw up and try to make amends, people will usually forgive you. But if you stiff a customer they have long memories.
I think that Chrysler should be excluded from any bailout monies.
Definitely a bailout should be banned; if money is loaned to Chrysler, I hope they have the sense to make Cerebus responsible for paying the money back, if Chrysler blows thru the $ and then fails. In fact since Chrysler is private, I would think that we should hold to the fact that Chrysler should loan the money from Cerebus. But at least a loan to Chrysler, because of Cerebus, has more chance of getting paid back if written correctly, then a loan to Ford or GM.
Or Cerebus should sell Chrysler for whatever it can get. Let Cerebus's owners take the loss, not the taxpayer!
I only see one like mine for sale within 200 miles. They are asking $2000 less than I paid new for mine a year ago. So to answer your question I would probably accept a $3000 loss if I found a diesel SUV I like that is better than the Sequoia. Right now the only ones on my list are the BMW X5d and the Mercedes GL & ML320 CDI. Oh mine has the NAV and Entertainment which the one listed does not have. Ask me if I am worried. With gas under $2 I would not hesitate going on a long trip with the Sequoia. And yes it is a gas guzzling pig. What real high mileage SUV options do Americans have?
Looks like in a few months it will be fewer. Not that GM or Ford has anything I want at present. I would consider an Expedition with a small diesel engine.
Regards,
OW
You can't blame them for lining up at the trough with the other two. Bailouts are not really loans. They are giving OUR money to keep these companies afloat. We are also loaning TRILLIONS to banks to keep them going. I am surprised the printing presses are not worn out.
What's truly troubling is the number of longshots we're looking at."
Can the Domestics go Bankrupt without going Bankrupt? (Karl on Cars)
In other news, "The three big domestic automakers are now saying they are working jointly on a new hybrid car. It runs on a combination of state and federal bailout money." (Leno via AutoObserver)
i realize there has been a lot of abuse there.
people still need a roof over their heads.
autos are a tougher sell, because they are lower on the food chain.
even if the auto company bail outs do not ultimately save the companies, they will cushion the blow. if approved, hopefully the money will be used wisely.
my domestic vehicles have never given a lot of trouble, so i see no reason to not keep buying them. jmo.
Why GIVE it to them? To stave off a quick melt-down in the Dow to 5,000 this winter when they declare bankruptcy. $25 billion is 0.5 percent of what we're throwing out ($5 trillion dollar bail-out) to save the financial sector.
This $25 billion will give our economy the chance to stabilize by late next year and we'll be better able to take the hit of the Big 3's 2010 bankruptcy which is inevitable.
It's a done deal. They'll get the $$ by January and the other 99.5% will be going to the big wheels in finance.
Get a grip on some reality. As a Republican, I still know GWB is a disaster. Torture. Loss of credibility. Loss of respect world-wide. Invasion of independent country uninvolved in 9-11.
It looks to me like the "socialist" Obama is more open to demanding a realistic restructuring plan from the D3 than the "less government" GWB. Thank god.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Chrysler's financial situation is hard to know exactly, but it seems that they're very poorly positioned in terms of their product portfolio. They have essentially no overseas presence, which means they don't have the ability to drive sales into a growing market like China. I think you'd have to look very hard at any business case around a Chrysler bailout. Allowing Chrysler to fail would free up some buyers, and probably a lot of them would stay with the domestics.
GM needs to figure out how to erase about 5000 dealers and 4 or 5 divisions. Having dealers out there selling 10 cars a month isn't helping anybody's cause. It seems unlikely that current management will drive this type of reorg and maybe only Chapter 11 can make it happen.
Ford is a bit easier to support. Bill Ford already fired himself as CEO and Ford has made hard decisions about driving production down. They still have too many products and too many dealers, though, and their hybrids are late to market.
What would Ford or GM have to offer the Jeep buyer? Right now the only pseudo competitor to the Wrangler is the Toyota FJ Cruiser and it may be scrapped. Dodge Cummins PU owners may grudgingly buy a GM or Ford PU. Mini Vans, who cares they are all about the same. Chrysler still holds the trump card in GMAC. That seems to be a big problem at GM getting anyone to finance their products.
Ford is going to be OK with plants like the one in Brazil. I got a feeling that GM or Ford could scrap their US holdings and make money in the rest of the World. The US has them so tied up with back breaking contracts and horrible regulations.
GM shed one dinosaur in Delphi. Now it is time for them to file for C11 and get rid of the rest of their dead weight.
I stated a bunch of realities in my list of 7 items. You have not countered any of the 7 points with any truth. Seven tenths of one percent of unemployment increase in four years is disaster? Yes, with enough spin I guess!
To spin the destruction of America and now hope to say it was contrived, we are really OK, is a bad plan. But it was the plan. $4 gas thew a tire iron in the spokes of that plan. The big 3 are hurt by $4 gas too. They are also hurt by the confidence killing plan that was contrived and executed against our country. Obama owes them the bailout because he got all the union vote and his 'It's the economy stupid' plan has caused their further demise.
We have to spend our way out of the mess some say. We will have huge debts. W inherited the tech bubble burst when people carry stock losses onto their tax returns for years. It killed the budget along with 9-11 and the hurricanes. Now Obama inherits the mortgage meltdown and all that does to future federal revenue intake. He has made part of the mess and now has to figure out how to pull the plane out of the dive. For 2 years he kept yelling that the plane was in a dive. Now he's the pilot and the dive has become real. He was expecting the instruments to be found to be broken and the plane was actually climbing.
It's not going to happen because fat cats covers and protects each other. If Joe Schmoe makes a financial mistake nobody will bailout him, but if CEO makes a financial mistake he gets medical insurance, pension & etc.
I don't have time to go thru your 7 points and verify the numbers, but I certainly give you the benefit of the doubt on most though, as you have a history of posting reliable and sensible views.
But I will add that though you may be right on those, there are many indicators pointing to serious, serious problems. Without going into specifics as the holiday errands beckon, I would like to say that we've been thru several weekends lately where the Treasury and the President are on the phone on Sun. nights. Well it's the equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And when you see the Treasury offering $700B 2 months ago, and $800B the other day, and the Fed cutting interst rates below 1% (they can't go much lower!), I would say the financial folks are desperate.
And on a personal basis, I know many people who need next week's paycheck to pay the bills. They no longer have any home equity. Their 401K is down 40%. Food is up 20% this year. And most people around here receive local tax bills that are 10% higher EACH YEAR. And very few people think they'll get the social security amount they are currently promised.
If you still think the fundamentals are good, then I nominate you for Optimist of the Year.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler need to sit down with the unions, suppliers and banks, and need to say "This is how much is coming in, and that's how much can go out; we need to adjust our budget to make that work."
I think you got it! I think the Big 3 would love to get out of their commitments in the U.S.A. They could make money if they were only producing and selling overseas. Of course, if they stick around and can collect another $25 billion, then why not!
One other thought, why doesn't Mexico and Brazil come up with some of the $25 billion?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
It is perception of worth. The Disney board thought that Michael Ovitz was going to make them lots of money. He turned out to be a bumbling idiot with a good lawyer writing his contract. It cost Disney $140,000,000 to get rid of him. Franklin Raines as CEO, took $100s of millions in bonuses from Fannie Mae. Rather than have a scandal in that pseudo corporation they forced him to retire. He got to keep at least $110,000,000 of his ill got gains. Both examples are what our executives in this country have evolved into. I believe any company that receives tax dollars to survive should have automatic caps on salaries, bonuses and stock options.
I liked McCain's idea that those executives would be limited to pay equal to the highest public offices.
I imagine they did give some kind of incentives to build there. Are they making money in those locations would be the question to ask? I know GM has asked Germany to bolster their Opel division. Canada has a lot to lose also with GM and Ford closing up shop.
This has been occurring since the early 1970s. It didn't start in 2000.
tired_old_dave: While the fear is now deflation, how does keeping the printing presses working overtime not produce a debased currency and hyper-inflation or just ...
Inflation occurs when too much money is chasing the same number of goods. So much wealth has evaporated over the past year that these injections of cash won't replace it.
Recent actions of the federal government show that someone has learned from history - more specifically, the history of this country from 1929 to 1933.
The stock market crash didn't cause the Great Depression. It was a necessary correction to rampant speculation in the stock market, which began around 1927.
Several factors turned what should have been a short, sharp recession into the Great Depression.
The first was the Hawley Smoot Tariff passed in 1930, which was designed to "protect" American industries, but ended up choking international trade. The market for American goods dried up, and the economic downturn spread to Europe. There was a thriving export market for American cars at this time (particularly for luxury marques like Packard and Cadillac), but foreign countries slammed that door shut in retaliation for the American passage of Hawley Smoot. The American manufacturers thus faced the loss of export markets at the same time that domestic demand was slackening.
The second was a goverment concerned about inflation, when the real problem was deflation. The Federal Reserve choked off the money supply at a crucial time. It was akin to treating someone for a fever after he had frozen to death. This is why the government has been injecting cash into the economy.
Another factor was a rising tax burden between 1929 and 1932. Note that even Obama has backed off on his plan to immediately repeal the Bush tax cuts (now his plan is to let them expire as scheduled), because he has advisers smart enough to realize that government should not raise taxes during an economic downturn.
As for bailing out financial firms and not automakers - the simple fact is that financial firms are more important to the economy than, say, General Motors. Again, our government has learned from history. The collapse of several financial institutions during the early 1930s was a significant factor in worsening the economic downturn.
That is not to say that more oversight shouldn't accompany the government aid.
At this point, the best option for General Motors is some sort of pre-packaged, government-approved bankruptcy plan that allows the company to use the tools available in a bankruptcy filing to cut costs and slim down without an actual filing, which would scare away customers.
One, GM should keep its full-size SUVs. There is still a market for those vehicles, and GM's are the best of the bunch. GM's mistake wasn't in making those vehicles, it was in betting the farm on them
Two, Lincoln is still viable, especially as Ford works to combine its dealer network. Around here, several Lincoln Mercury dealers have closed down, and one Ford dealer has taken on the franchise.
If Ford and Lincoln are combined at the dealer level (as they were, ironically, prior to World War II), then dealers will have Fords to appeal to the mass market, and Lincolns to appeal to more traditional, upscale buyers.
I agree, the Suburban has been around for decades. It has survived all the ups and downs. As long as someone has a family and needs to tow something, they will have a market. Sure this can be served by a crew cab pickup, but the pick up still can't haul over 5-6 people (bed doesn't count).
That makes a lot of sense to me. I was at the Honda dealer this week and the Acura dealer is across the street. I would have liked to have peeked into an Acura, but I wasn't going to walk over there.
I bet Ford could manage quite a few upsales by having Lincolns in the showroom.
Of course there will be guys like me who go in to look at a MKZ and decide that the Focus is pretty darn nice for half the price.
"Rumors howling in Detroit's November winds point to brand-burning as one of the primary ways the companies plan to demonstrate to Congress they will be able to sustain their operations in a U.S. auto market that is expected to be decidedly unkind for all of 2009 and possibly well into 2010."
For Bailout Blueprint, GM, Ford Might Finally Burn Rubber on Underperforming Brands (AutoObserver)
I agree and good point. Driver100 Plan is to limit Presidents pay to 15X top paying salary in the company. Example: If top class worker makes $60,000, Pres gets $900,000 Max.
Other execs top out at 10 X = $600,000
Could have bonus plans like extra percentage based on increase in sales of same percentage. I don't believe too many execs actually have a value of $100 million dollars a year...no human being is that good.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
At this point, for Ford, a sale is a sale...
As for the article on GM and Ford eliminating brands - I would disagree with some points.
At Ford, the Mercury unit has been a black hole for decades and simply must go by any rational assessment.
Mercury doesn't bring anything new to the customer, but the vehicles are basically Fords with different grilles, headlights and taillights. The investment to create a Mercury from a Ford is next-to-nothing, and the vehicles receive virtually no national advertising support anymore, so the division isn't really costing Ford much money. From a financial standpoint, it's not a black hole.
The company has stressed it has faith in the Lincoln luxury division - and it would be hard to suggest Ford forge ahead with no premium-market presence - but in coldly clinical terms (the kind that might be necessary to mollify a Congress running on high-horsepower skepticism of Big Three management acumen), Lincoln doesn't work and hasn't since the 1960s.
Lincoln was quite successful during the 1970s, when it set sales records with the "standard" Continentals and Marks, and again during the mid-1980s and early 1990s, when the Town Car was selling very well.
I'd ditch the MKZ, develop the MKS and upcoming MKT, keep the Navigator and figure out how to build a rear-wheel-drive Lincoln off of the next Mustang platform. And either kill the Town Car or update it with new styling, a better chassis and a MUCH more luxurious interior.
Could they shut down in the US, continue operating overseas, and then a few years later return to the US? I wonder if they could start fresh without UAW contracts if they "cleaned up" in this way, or if they would still have contractual obligations?
Of course none of this matters if they go BK anyway.
The minivan business might fit into Ford or it might just as well disappear.