Chrysler on it's death bed

[CHARGERSHED]

Well folks, it's just about over now... The Obama Administration has rejected Chrysler's restructure plan and has given the automaker 30 days to make a merger with Fiat happen or, it will be left for dead with no fed loans...On the other hand, Obama had GM CEO Rick Wagoner sacked over the weekend and has given GM 60 days to submit a new plan( think bankruptcy, where Obama's Admins can gain control over another iconic American Co. (the socialization of America continues) and something Mr. Wagoner was strongly opposed to...)
In a speech given today, Obama sighted awards GM has received over the last few years and how Chrysler hasn't had any awards and how their products aren't very good. Insiders believe the fact that Cerberus owns Chrysler and refuses to put it's own money behind the comapny, gives Obama a way to inflict some damage on the secretive private equity firm.

read more about it here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090330/pl_bloomberg/arw6keyfqteg


The article states that since Obama did not have Nardelli removed as CEO, it is a strong indicator that Chrysler won't be around much longer.

My opinion; Obama wants Chrysler to go away so it can concentrate on restructuring GM and force whats left of the US auto industry into producing "green" vehicles to appease more of his left wing eviromentalists buddies... The folks running Ford know this, and that's why they refused to partake of any Government loans. While Obama claims he doesn't want to have Government run GM, he was the one who forced GM's CEO into retirement, one who just happend to oppose his administration singular focus, geting GM into bankruptcy court. Since Chrysler has stated that they would shut down rather than restrucure under some type of govn't run bankruptcy, Obama is willing to trade those jobs for the bigger GM, and then shift blame of Chrysler's failure squarely on Cerberus' shoulders for political gain. He has already set up a special administrator for stimulus funds to the upper midwest region, the only such region to have one.He has agreed to subsidize American manufacturers new car vehicle warranties in an effort to stimulate sales( his take), but really this is to assure the few Chrysler customers left that there will be a warranty on their purchase, even after Chrysler is no more.

Pretty much Black Monday as far as MOPAR fans are concerned. I feel for the 50,000 plus Chrysler employees( many of whom probably voted for Obama) who are being abandoned by the present administration while hundreds of millions of dollars are going to wall street executives in the form of tax-payer subsidised bonuses. The small business that support Chrysler will get pinched in this deal, along with dealers and all of those employees...a dark day indeed...

[DMAG]

Chrysler reaches deal with Fiat...that was quick.

Marketwatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={7A44C728-7F4E-496E-AA2C-3B772B13F0AB})

[Darthvader]

Deal with Fiat Is done

[DMAG]

Yup...deal is pretty much done:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29958784/

[MGM]

Well folks, it's just about over now... The Obama Administration has rejected Fiat's restructure plan and has given the automaker 30 days to make a merger with Fiat happen or, it will be left for dead with no fed loans...On the other hand, Obama had GM CEO Rick Wagoner sacked over the weekend and has given GM 60 days to submit a new plan( think bankruptcy, where Obama's Admins can gain control over another iconic American Co. (the socialization of America continues) and something Mr. Wagoner was strongly opposed to...)
In a speech given today, Obama sighted awards GM has received over the last few years and how Fiat hasn't had any awards and how their products aren't very good. Insiders believe the fact that Cerberus owns Fiat and refuses to put it's own money behind the comapny, gives Obama a way to inflict some damage on the secretive private equity firm.

read more about it here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090330/pl_bloomberg/arw6keyfqteg


The article states that since Obama did not have Nardelli removed as CEO, it is a strong indicator that Fiat won't be around much longer.

My opinion; Obama wants Fiat to go away so it can concentrate on restructuring GM and force whats left of the US auto industry into producing "green" vehicles to appease more of his left wing eviromentalists buddies... The folks running Ford know this, and that's why they refused to partake of any Government loans. While Obama claims he doesn't want to have Government run GM, he was the one who forced GM's CEO into retirement, one who just happend to oppose his administration singular focus, geting GM into bankruptcy court. Since Fiat has stated that they would shut down rather than restrucure under some type of govn't run bankruptcy, Obama is willing to trade those jobs for the bigger GM, and then shift blame of Fiat's failure squarely on Cerberus' shoulders for political gain. He has already set up a special administrator for stimulus funds to the upper midwest region, the only such region to have one.He has agreed to subsidize American manufacturers new car vehicle warranties in an effort to stimulate sales( his take), but really this is to assure the few Fiat customers left that there will be a warranty on their purchase, even after Fiat is no more.

Pretty much Black Monday as far as MOPAR fans are concerned. I feel for the 50,000 plus Fiat employees( many of whom probably voted for Obama) who are being abandoned by the present administration while hundreds of millions of dollars are going to wall street executives in the form of tax-payer subsidised bonuses. The small business that support Fiat will get pinched in this deal, along with dealers and all of those employees...a dark day indeed...
The guy with GM probably should be canned along with a lot of the others. Now Mopar was through after Mercedes got through with it. They had sucked it dry before these guys got it.

[chuck-n-michelle]

Lets hope that things can be worked out and that Chrysler will be around for many more years to come...

I just found a vehicle in my Charger that I absolutely love and wouldn't want to lose at any cost. The only way you could get my hands of the wheel was if they were attached to a cold dead body! Right now I can't even imagine owning another brand of car or not be able to get another one...

[slvr bullet]

Would you keep your job if this was your legacy?

"Wagoner, who had presided over the company's rapid decline in the past five years and had run the automaker since 2000, was forced out at the request of the autos panel headed by former investment banker Steve Rattner. A majority of GM's board will also be replaced.
"We are left to look back and say that Wagoner's appointment as both chairman and CEO in 2003 was little more than an act to ensure the dynasty of GM boardroom arrogance and failure continued," said Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at brokerage BGC Partners.
Wheeldon said Wagoner's departure had been all but inevitable since the automaker sought government funds and said he was disappointed the authorities had not insisted on an external replacement.
Wagoner protege and GM President and Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson was named as the new CEO. Wagoner's departure came as the Obama administration came under fire for not blocking bonuses to executives at American International Group Inc."

As far as Chrysler goes given the 30 day ultimatum it didn't take them long to form the alliance with Fiat.
I love my Charger but if all of the big three had given a green alternative maybe they would not be in the trouble they are in to-day. We used to have a saying in the trade I was in "Those who do the paying are the ones who do the saying" At this point the government is doing the paying so it should be expected they should be doing the saying. As far as GM goes when the consumer was doing the paying they did not want to listen and they are now paying the price. IMO

[sublime1365]

You are right on Erik.. this administration has, and will continue to, screw things up for this country by trying to squash capitalism. Its funny, Mr. O. probably cant even change a tire and he somehow thinks he knows whats best for an auto company that has been in business for over 100 years and was once the biggest company in the world...

[slvr bullet]

Sometimes when you are really sick the medicine you have to take doesn't taste too good!!

[MidnightSXT]

Obama wants Chrysler to go away huh....I guess that 300C he apparently owned that was for sale on ebay a few months ago was a lemon?

[viper3ez]

uhhh, i already see a trend of mild attacks on Mr O on this thread.

i hope we can discuss this thread with repect to the future of our LXes without making it political with our expressions of likes or dislikes for certain individuals.


i'm happy chrysler is staying.

i hope they can bring soe small interesting cars from europe with the fiat mariage.

nevertheless, its the retardedness of these same people in the 70s and 80s that got us all those awful cars that gave domestics a bad name (K cars i think)

i dont want to see that happen again.

[Sevenernine]

You are right on Erik.. this administration has, and will continue to, screw things up for this country by trying to squash capitalism. Its funny, Mr. O. probably cant even change a tire and he somehow thinks he knows whats best for an auto company that has been in business for over 100 years and was once the biggest company in the world...


lolwut?


The fact remains that the "Big 3" have been making lower and lower quality vehicles for the last 15-20 years.


There exists a thing called CAFE. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Basically it states that you, as a company, have to reach an average MPG of X or better, otherwise you get fined for every car that isn't, that you sell.


It's been loosely enforced in the past, but has started becoming a bigger deal.

So, here's what we have:

Japanese automakers who make reliable, fuel efficient cars at low prices. They're already way above Cafe, and don't give a **** about it.

European manufacturers, who make somewhat reliable, piss poor fuel economy luxury cars at high prices. They sell to a wealthier market, who will swallow the cost, so they also don't give a ****.

And American manufacturers, who make low economy cars, with mediocre reliability, at a middle of the road price. They are trying to compete price-wise with Japanese manufacturers, but are having to pass along this cost to consumers, thus making their lower efficiency, lower reliability vehicles more expensive than the market in which they are trying to compete.


Now, European car manufacturers (Benz, BMW, Audi...etc) could give a **** less because they'll just pass that cost along to their customers, who have the money to buy a $70k Mercedes.

So, that leaves the rest of us. The middle class of people who want a good reliable car, and not to spend too much at the pump. I love my R/T, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone gives a damn about horsepower. If I'm a middle aged, middle income family in need of a new car, odds are I'm going to buy a cheaper, more reliable, more efficient Toyota Camry, than a Chevy Malibu, Dodge Avenger, or Ford Fusion.

So, with the exception of the people who hold on to the "Buy only american!" credo that is outdated becuase we, as a nation, are no longer producing the highest quality goods, most people are going to opt to buy foreign.


The bed they lay in is the bed that they have made. Don't get me wrong, I want the 3 to survive and prosper as much as anyone, but to sit here and throw out "Socialist!" nonsense because Obama's administration is trying to salvage these car companies before they die is absurd.

You don't like the methods he's implementing? Fine. But realize the alternative is that they get no money, and have to suffer for the failures they created. It's ****ty, but after the whole Wall Street fiasco with bonuses and ****, the government is going to be a lot more cautious about where this money goes. Yeah it sucks that Wall Street got away with it, but unless you can build a Delorean with a Flux Capacitor and get it up to 88 MPH to generate the required Gigawatts to go back in time to convince the government not to give Wall Street billions of dollars, there's no reason to bring it up as if it's going to make a difference now.


Furthermore, some of you act as if Obama has a personal stake in the bailout money being given, as if he's going to take over GM as CEO and let Chrysler drown.


I'm going to stop, now... Because everything else I have to say wouldn't be productive. But please stop listening to everything Fox News tells you.

Good day.

Oh, and I know there's some redundency in this post. Sorry.

[SnowgodCCR]

You are right on Erik.. this administration has, and will continue to, screw things up for this country by trying to squash capitalism. Its funny, Mr. O. probably cant even change a tire and he somehow thinks he knows whats best for an auto company that has been in business for over 100 years and was once the biggest company in the world...

Are you kidding? You're actually inferring that GM knows how to run their company, a concept which I find laughable and nostalgic. If they knew how to run their company, they wouldn't be in the total mess that they're in. If they understood how things work, they would have been trying to compete with Toyota, Honda, Hundai, BMW, Mercedes and all the other foreign manufacturers instead of using 1970's era rhetoric about how "them thar furrign ve-hikkles ain't nuthin but trash" and selling their vehicles by convincing people that the competition was non-existant and that a GM product was the only way to go. The ONLY people that I know that have bought a Chevy (corvettes and camaros excepted) or Pontiac come from a long line of GM owners who won't buy anything else (or people in areas where there are no foreign car dealers). The people who shop around before buying tend to steer towards the foreign makes because they DON'T suck. I had it out for Chrysler until I got my 300C. Now I'm hoping they survive. But even after owning my Saab (which I loved dearly) I was cursing GM on a weekly basis and hoping that they would just sell Saab and end their reign of tyranny over them. Saab being sold to the Swedish government is a godsend to me, because now as far as I'm concerned GM can pay the price for producing garbage.
We also have a 2004 Cadillac Deville that I would LOVE to get rid of (it was inherited), because as far as I can tell it's a badge-engineered Impala with some nice leather and plastic wood on the dashboard. When Caddy is selling chevy's, you know it's time to let them die.

[sublime1365]

"The fact remains that the "Big 3" have been making lower and lower quality vehicles for the last 15-20 years."

Not true.. GM has had many vehicles in the top 10 in quality for many years. In fact.. BUICK surpassed LEXUS last week as #1 in quality. Saturn has been near the top for MANY years too...

I've owned many a GM car in my life... never had issues with any of them... chevies, buicks, oldsmobiles, even a GMC. Peoples perceptions have been tainted.. unfairly.
I only switched to an LX because of the great experience I had with a company vehicle that was an Intrepid.

Not trying to start an arguement or be too political... just wish the government would stay out of Private Business..thats all.. just let them fail or succeed on thier own if thats thier destiny. Let the market place determine thier fate...not government. Ford was smart to not take the bail-out bait.. they knew there would be too many strings attached.

[DMAG]

Easy on the attacks gents.

As for the Chrysler Fiat deal....well, the announcement was a bit premature.


UPDATE: Chrysler has released a corrected statement that says it's only agreed with Fiat on a "framework of a global alliance," but that no deal with the Italian automaker to partner up has been made yet. So they've basically agreed on what a Chrysler-Fiat mashup would look like, but not on whether they're going to do it.

[ZMagnum]

The big 3 are not making lower quality cars. It's just the opposite. How can anyone say this or believe this that's a member here? Do you not like the car you drive? Why are you here? I don't understand. I believe the big 3 USED to have poorer quality than Japanese auto makers but that was back in the 80's. Things have changed since then.

[ray_m]

Look at Rick Wagoner's track record:

Put Chevys back in America's driveways..... NO
Put the excitement back in Pontiac..... NO
Turn a profit with Saab..... NO
Make Saturn a different kind of car company..... NO
Gain or even retain market share..... NO
Introduce a small car, regardless of origin, to compete with Honda and Toyota..... NO
Instill brand loyalty by bringing in a new generation of car buyers..... NO

There are reasons why GM *WAS* the biggest and most important company in the world.

They did achieve a few things. Cadillac makes nice cars now, but only because they were forced to react to competition that was eating them alive. Ditto with the Malibu, but its a car that arrived 5 years too late, plus it has Saturn and Pontiac siblings that only confuse customers. Buick is getting bigger and is real big in China of all places, but really - who buys Buicks? For a huge company they have ony 3 cars I would even remotely contemplate: Corvette, Malibu, and CTS. The midsize Traverse-type SUVs are OK, but again there are too many of them with different badges. All the rest can go in the dumpster.

As for Chrysler, I would think they are better sized for today's auto market. I never liked Chryslers much until I laid eyes on my 300C. Save the 300, their cars have the crappiest interiors known to mankind. Maybe the Fiat connection will give us new 300 CRDs with stylish Italian leather. Who knows?

[done]

Geesh, there is nothing left to say. All of the marketing execs with a proven track record in the auto business have spoken in this thread, or am I just confused.

[slvr bullet]

Geesh, there is nothing left to say. All of the marketing execs with a proven track record in the auto business have spoken in this thread, or am I just confused.
You don't have to be a good skater to recognize a good quad and you don't have to be a marketing exec to recognize a bad one.

[done]

You don't have to be a good skater to recognize a good quad and you don't have to be a marketing exec to recognize a bad one.

It is easy to be a critic, it requires no credentials, just a podium. Actually accomplishing something is hard and requires talent. No remembers the works of a critic only the works of those who took the risks.

[SnowgodCCR]

Introduce a small car, regardless of origin, to compete with Honda and Toyota..... NO



THIS is what got GM in trouble. Honda and toyota make small cars, but their whole lineup isn't made of small cars. The Camry is a midsize sedan, comes very well equipped, is quiet, comfortable, and refined. It gets 25mpg combined. Ditto on the corrolla, except ramp that mileage up to 30 mpg.
To get 30 mpg in a Chevy, you need to drive the POS Aveo or Cobalt. Seriously?
Yes, toyota makes the Yaris which is a tiny little econo-box, but that is what the Aveo is competing with, and at a much higher price point.

Geesh, there is nothing left to say. All of the marketing execs with a proven track record in the auto business have spoken in this thread, or am I just confused.

Yeah, you're right. We shouldn't discuss anything because we haven't ever run a company into the ground, or right on through the damn ground and about 25 billion dollars down. Lets all keep our mouths shut.
We can all discuss politics without being politicians, and nobody says anything about that. Do you know something about the mess that GM and Chrysler are in that the rest of us don't?

[slvr bullet]

It is easy to be a critic, it requires no credentials, just a podium. Actually accomplishing something is hard and requires talent. No remembers the works of a critic only the works of those who took the risks.
My son is a partner at the ad agency that has the Humer and Cadilac contracts. He sees the mismanagement from the inside. History will determine weather the critics or the auto execs had more merit.

[CHARGERSHED]

I felt each point needed it's own rebuttal, my responses are in red...lolwut?

Where to begin? It is a post such as this that shows the mis-information that the typical american consumer is buying into... so how about some facts...


The fact remains that the "Big 3" have been making lower and lower quality vehicles for the last 15-20 years.

Fact, Buick and Jaguar tied for 1st on the latest JD Power quality survey...


There exists a thing called CAFE. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Basically it states that you, as a company, have to reach an average MPG of X or better, otherwise you get fined for every car that isn't, that you sell.

This is true, however every year since 1980 the best selling Vehicles were light duty pickups... in fact as late as 2006 the top 3 selling vehicles in this country were the ford f-series, chevy silverado and dodge ram, the Toyota Camry was 4th...


It's been loosely enforced in the past, but has started becoming a bigger deal.


Never loosely enforced, in 2007 Chrysler paid over 3 million in fines in that year alone... Ford and GM paid more...

So, here's what we have:

Japanese automakers who make reliable, fuel efficient cars at low prices. They're already way above Cafe, and don't give a **** about it.

This is the biggest mis-conception out there...Fact Car and Driver road test digest:
2008 Dodge Avenger SXT Price as tested $20,195 EPA MPG 21 city 30 highway
2008 Toyota Camry LE price as tested $23,883 EPA MPG 21 city 31 highway
That's a $3700 price discrepency, and in 2008 Chrysler had the lowest percentage of safety recalls of any manufacturer... try googling "camry engine sludge problems"
European manufacturers, who make somewhat reliable, piss poor fuel economy luxury cars at high prices. They sell to a wealthier market, who will swallow the cost, so they also don't give a ****.

Again, you have no clue... from the same Car&Driver;
2008 VW Rabbit S $16,435, Honda Fit sport $18,580... a $2100 price difference and I could site more facts to support my point...

And American manufacturers, who make low economy cars, with mediocre reliability, at a middle of the road price. They are trying to compete price-wise with Japanese manufacturers, but are having to pass along this cost to consumers, thus making their lower efficiency, lower reliability vehicles more expensive than the market in which they are trying to compete.

See above, as an aside, every Toyota dealership I drive by has a huge service dept behind it... I'm sure they only do oil changes...[sarcasm]

Now, European car manufacturers (Benz, BMW, Audi...etc) could give a **** less because they'll just pass that cost along to their customers, who have the money to buy a $70k Mercedes.

fact: VW Jetta TDI gets 29/40 mpg and cost $7000 less than a camry hybrid wich gets 33/34... 7000 dollars buys a lot of diesel fuel. Most European vehicles run on diesel and aren't sold here, I could list dozens of fuel effiecent inexpensive vehicles available right now, just not here in the states...

So, that leaves the rest of us. The middle class of people who want a good reliable car, and not to spend too much at the pump. I love my R/T, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone gives a damn about horsepower. If I'm a middle aged, middle income family in need of a new car, odds are I'm going to buy a cheaper, more reliable, more efficient Toyota Camry, than a Chevy Malibu, Dodge Avenger, or Ford Fusion.

Malibu $21905, Fusion $19035, Avenger $20,195, Camry $23,833, Accord $24,495 and they are all within 1 MPG of each other... and that's before incentives! Chevy has a 100k powertrain warranty and the Dodge has a lifetime!

So, with the exception of the people who hold on to the "Buy only american!" credo that is outdated becuase we, as a nation, are no longer producing the highest quality goods, most people are going to opt to buy foreign.

A complete mis-conception perpetrated by foreign car companies and biased publications like Consumer Reports... and in this economy, most people are opting not to buy anything...


The bed they lay in is the bed that they have made. Don't get me wrong, I want the 3 to survive and prosper as much as anyone, but to sit here and throw out "Socialist!" nonsense because Obama's administration is trying to salvage these car companies before they die is absurd.

It is a bed made with help from the american consumer, who for years of cheap oil prices wouldn't even look twice at a Toyota Yaris while they were buying their f-150's and Tahoes and Explorer's and HEMI Chargers and 300's. The big 3 didn't invest in small car technology because there was no demand for it. The knee jerk reaction of the general public to a small part of a larger crisis is the only reason anyone is paying attention to american made small cars. As far as the socialist comment, I stand by what I said, when government gives billions of dollars to large businesses, they are assuming an ownership role in those businesses...gov't controlled business= socialism, see China and the former Soviet Union for examples of state run business.

You don't like the methods he's implementing? Fine. But realize the alternative is that they get no money, and have to suffer for the failures they created. It's ****ty, but after the whole Wall Street fiasco with bonuses and ****, the government is going to be a lot more cautious about where this money goes. Yeah it sucks that Wall Street got away with it, but unless you can build a Delorean with a Flux Capacitor and get it up to 88 MPH to generate the required Gigawatts to go back in time to convince the government not to give Wall Street billions of dollars, there's no reason to bring it up as if it's going to make a difference now.

No one should like it, at some point the bills are going to come due and the American tax payer is going to foot it, that's both you and me, pal...When we fail, the fed doesn't hand us any money, we have to man up, or be homeless...it should be the same for business...


Furthermore, some of you act as if Obama has a personal stake in the bailout money being given, as if he's going to take over GM as CEO and let Chrysler drown.

UMMM, He did call for, and got, the resignation of GM's CEO and at some point during their BK process, he will name his successor, that to me says "I run the show here". He does have a personal stake in the bailouts, it's called re-election for him and his party members. Cerberus is a very conservative Co. that counts Tony Snow( pres Bush Admin.) as one of it's board members, so if he can shift blame of the failure of Chrysler to his political enemies, so be it...


I'm going to stop, now... Because everything else I have to say wouldn't be productive. But please stop listening to everything Fox News tells you.

Nothing you said was productive, or accurate for that matter... BTW, I don't watch Fox News, I get facts, then formulate oppinions based on them...

Good day.

Good day to you also...

[MagNite]

The big 3 are not making lower quality cars. It's just the opposite. How can anyone say this or believe this that's a member here? Do you not like the car you drive? Why are you here? I don't understand. I believe the big 3 USED to have poorer quality than Japanese auto makers but that was back in the 80's. Things have changed since then.

Agree 100%. I've owned 6 Chryslers now and they've all been great, reliable cars.

[Sevenernine]

I felt each point needed it's own rebuttal, my responses are in red...
im not going to do a complete response to this right now because im sending this from my phone... i just want to point out two things:

First of all, VW is not the only european car maker, so stop acting like they are. They have always made affordable vehicles.

Second, pointing out the positive things that have been done in the last few years, while completely ignoring the mass production of garbage vehicles during the 80s ans 90s is ridiculou.

Further, Wagoner got ****canned because he was doing a great job of running gm into the ground. Ill address the rest later.

Next time you respond to someone and attempt to make them look uneducated, you might wanna think out better responses.

Oh, and light trucks are in a different category in CAFE... its called "Light Trucks.. Dont compare apples and oranges.

Posted via LXFMobile

[Sevenernine]

The big 3 are not making lower quality cars. It's just the opposite. How can anyone say this or believe this that's a member here? Do you not like the car you drive? Why are you here? I don't understand. I believe the big 3 USED to have poorer quality than Japanese auto makers but that was back in the 80's. Things have changed since then.

I love my car. If you think this is an issue of the last few years, youve missed the point.

Posted via LXFMobile

[Sevenernine]

Okay, to clarify in advance, Chargershed, I have no personal qualms with you. we're just having an intelligent debate about what's factual and what isn't. So don't take this all too personally.

I hate to quote a quote, for the sake of space... But I gots ta! My responses to your responses will be in...

Let's go with Green.
I felt each point needed it's own rebuttal, my responses are in red...


lolwut?

Where to begin? It is a post such as this that shows the mis-information that the typical american consumer is buying into... so how about some facts...

How about some of those, indeed.




The fact remains that the "Big 3" have been making lower and lower quality vehicles for the last 15-20 years.

Fact, Buick and Jaguar tied for 1st on the latest JD Power quality survey...

That's great.

Right, but in 2006 when this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/11/08/cr_most_reliable/index.html) was written, the tale of American Reliablity was a bit different.

So, Buick is kicking a$$. Good for them (maybe I should retract my other statements in a different thread about how GM was stupid for keeping Buick and cutting Pontiac/Saturn).

But we're not talking about Buick alone...

In fact, here is the data from your JD Power Quality Survey. This is the number of problems per 100 Cars.

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e201116906f6a9970c-800wi
Viewing this Data, we can conclude the following:

There are 6 US Manufacturers above the average, 7 Japanese, and 4 Europeans.

So... Only 1 more Japanese manufacturer than America! Alright!

Until you consider the numbers below the average

The US has 10, Japan (I'm generalizing, as Hyundai is actually from Korea, I believe) has 6, and Europe has 4, again.

Further, in the bottom 10, 6 of the listed manufacturers are American.

There are significantly more American "brands" than Asian, and by %, American ones are at a much higher percentage of "below average"

I think I've sufficiently proven that point... Moving on.



There exists a thing called CAFE. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Basically it states that you, as a company, have to reach an average MPG of X or better, otherwise you get fined for every car that isn't, that you sell.

This is true, however every year since 1980 the best selling Vehicles were light duty pickups... in fact as late as 2006 the top 3 selling vehicles in this country were the ford f-series, chevy silverado and dodge ram, the Toyota Camry was 4th...

As I stated in my "on my phone" post, CAFE splits cars and trucks into different categories. These standards were basically ignored by American manufacturers up until recently (as I said... but I'll get to that in the next section). For example, in 1990, the CAFE Requirement for Passenger Cars was 27.5, but for light trucks it was only 20.5 for 2WD, and 19 for 4WD. The COMBINED Average desired was...(Drumroll)

20!. Meaning that they were taking into consideration the number of trucks vs cars sold.

Your point here is void.

It's been loosely enforced in the past, but has started becoming a bigger deal.


Never loosely enforced, in 2007 Chrysler paid over 3 million in fines in that year alone... Ford and GM paid more...

This is what i would classify as recent. When I said "in the past", I meant prior to 2002ish. Because Cafe was basically a joke in the 90s. Read the above statement, and imagine that American cars were at 27MPG average.

Hell, imagine American cars were at 20 MPG average.

It's laughable.

So, here's what we have:

Japanese automakers who make reliable, fuel efficient cars at low prices. They're already way above Cafe, and don't give a **** about it.

This is the biggest mis-conception out there...Fact Car and Driver road test digest:
2008 Dodge Avenger SXT Price as tested $20,195 EPA MPG 21 city 30 highway
2008 Toyota Camry LE price as tested $23,883 EPA MPG 21 city 31 highway
That's a $3700 price discrepency, and in 2008 Chrysler had the lowest percentage of safety recalls of any manufacturer... try googling "camry engine sludge problems"

This is british, but give it a read.
http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/tophundred.html?apc=3128339010848601

Also, this:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/20/reliable-vehicles-japanese_cx_dl_0424feat.html

Also, read the above listed facts from JD Power.

The reason these Camry's are more expensive NOW is because they've been dominating the market for years.

Why? because people believe they are reliable, and so they will invest their money somewhere that they feel safe.

I intentionally didn't get data from Consumer Reports, as I'm sure that you'll just repeat that they're biased.


European manufacturers, who make somewhat reliable, piss poor fuel economy luxury cars at high prices. They sell to a wealthier market, who will swallow the cost, so they also don't give a ****.

Again, you have no clue... from the same Car&Driver;
2008 VW Rabbit S $16,435, Honda Fit sport $18,580... a $2100 price difference and I could site more facts to support my point...

Again, VW isn't the only manufacturer. Don't forget about BMW, Audi, Benz, Jaguar..etc. They don't make $15k cars. Citing half-truths to prove your point is disappointing. You did the same thing earlier by trying to defend US reliability with the stat that Buick had won JD Power's Reliability survey, failing to mention the 10 brands in the bottom half.

And again, these japanese cars are getting more expensive becuase they -can-. Look at new car prices 10-15 years ago. Japanese cars were significantly less expensive.

And American manufacturers, who make low economy cars, with mediocre reliability, at a middle of the road price. They are trying to compete price-wise with Japanese manufacturers, but are having to pass along this cost to consumers, thus making their lower efficiency, lower reliability vehicles more expensive than the market in which they are trying to compete.

See above, as an aside, every Toyota dealership I drive by has a huge service dept behind it... I'm sure they only do oil changes...[sarcasm]

There is no point here. Unless you want me to believe that because a dealership has a service department, that signifies their product is unreliable?

You weren't serious, were you?

Now, European car manufacturers (Benz, BMW, Audi...etc) could give a **** less because they'll just pass that cost along to their customers, who have the money to buy a $70k Mercedes.

fact: VW Jetta TDI gets 29/40 mpg and cost $7000 less than a camry hybrid wich gets 33/34... 7000 dollars buys a lot of diesel fuel. Most European vehicles run on diesel and aren't sold here, I could list dozens of fuel effiecent inexpensive vehicles available right now, just not here in the states...

I could approach this from several angles, but two very important statements need to be made here, and I'll just leave it at that:

1. VW isn't American, so defending it like its' the object of my post is frivilous.

2. The AVERAGE fuel economy for most european manufacturers is piss poor. Yeah, BMW may make a 4 cyl that gets 30 MPG... but they also make several 15 MPG V8s.


So, that leaves the rest of us. The middle class of people who want a good reliable car, and not to spend too much at the pump. I love my R/T, but the fact of the matter is that not everyone gives a damn about horsepower. If I'm a middle aged, middle income family in need of a new car, odds are I'm going to buy a cheaper, more reliable, more efficient Toyota Camry, than a Chevy Malibu, Dodge Avenger, or Ford Fusion.

Malibu $21905, Fusion $19035, Avenger $20,195, Camry $23,833, Accord $24,495 and they are all within 1 MPG of each other... and that's before incentives! Chevy has a 100k powertrain warranty and the Dodge has a lifetime!


I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see your point here, as well. The Japanese cars are more expensive for reasons I mentioned above. The fuel economy of US cars is STARTING to catch up. But you're posting as if this has been the standard. If you think this problem was caused in the last 2-3 years, you're lost.


So, with the exception of the people who hold on to the "Buy only american!" credo that is outdated becuase we, as a nation, are no longer producing the highest quality goods, most people are going to opt to buy foreign.

A complete mis-conception perpetrated by foreign car companies and biased publications like Consumer Reports... and in this economy, most people are opting not to buy anything...

I don't really need to respond to this.


The bed they lay in is the bed that they have made. Don't get me wrong, I want the 3 to survive and prosper as much as anyone, but to sit here and throw out "Socialist!" nonsense because Obama's administration is trying to salvage these car companies before they die is absurd.

It is a bed made with help from the american consumer, who for years of cheap oil prices wouldn't even look twice at a Toyota Yaris while they were buying their f-150's and Tahoes and Explorer's and HEMI Chargers and 300's. The big 3 didn't invest in small car technology because there was no demand for it. The knee jerk reaction of the general public to a small part of a larger crisis is the only reason anyone is paying attention to american made small cars. As far as the socialist comment, I stand by what I said, when government gives billions of dollars to large businesses, they are assuming an ownership role in those businesses...gov't controlled business= socialism, see China and the former Soviet Union for examples of state run business.

There is a section in here stating something upon which we can completely agree.

The American consumers are COMPLETELY at fault. Why? Becuase they kept buying these American junkers, year after year, until finally they started seeing that the benefits of buying foreign. In fact, I chuckle every time I see someone in a big 4x4 (or a Hemi...lol) complain about high gas prices. It's supply and demand...but I digress.

Onto this socialist business. My only commentary on this (so as to avoid turning this into a political debate) is that you need to realize China and Soviet Russia aren't the only socialist/communist nations to have existed. A good proportion of advanced European Nations (who are kicking our ass, economically) are socialist... With all those terrible things you are afraid of, like universal health care, mandatory maternity leave...etc.

So, I'm not going to tell you what to think, i just want to state these two things:

Obama isn't a socialist.

And if he were, it wouldn't be all bad. Do some research on modern socialism.


You don't like the methods he's implementing? Fine. But realize the alternative is that they get no money, and have to suffer for the failures they created. It's ****ty, but after the whole Wall Street fiasco with bonuses and ****, the government is going to be a lot more cautious about where this money goes. Yeah it sucks that Wall Street got away with it, but unless you can build a Delorean with a Flux Capacitor and get it up to 88 MPH to generate the required Gigawatts to go back in time to convince the government not to give Wall Street billions of dollars, there's no reason to bring it up as if it's going to make a difference now.

No one should like it, at some point the bills are going to come due and the American tax payer is going to foot it, that's both you and me, pal...When we fail, the fed doesn't hand us any money, we have to man up, or be homeless...it should be the same for business...

So, what are you proposing? We can either not foot the bill via taxes, and let these companies fail, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, which would hurt the economy significantly... Or we can pony up the money, and hope it turns out OK.

The bottom line is that the government having a say in these companies happenings at this point is a good thing - because they will be decisions not made by people who have a direct financial stake in the company ( as far as short term 'get it and split' profit). It's going to be people who want to get their money back in the long run!


Furthermore, some of you act as if Obama has a personal stake in the bailout money being given, as if he's going to take over GM as CEO and let Chrysler drown.

UMMM, He did call for, and got, the resignation of GM's CEO and at some point during their BK process, he will name his successor, that to me says "I run the show here". He does have a personal stake in the bailouts, it's called re-election for him and his party members. Cerberus is a very conservative Co. that counts Tony Snow( pres Bush Admin.) as one of it's board members, so if he can shift blame of the failure of Chrysler to his political enemies, so be it...

So, you're saying that Wagoner getting fired has nothing to do with his poor performance and bad decision making, and everything to do with Obama's evil socialist plan to take over GM? Just want to clarify here, that you're saying this is all a ploy for 2012 election amunition against his Republican opposition, when that time comes?

Heh.


I'm going to stop, now... Because everything else I have to say wouldn't be productive. But please stop listening to everything Fox News tells you.

Nothing you said was productive, or accurate for that matter... BTW, I don't watch Fox News, I get facts, then formulate oppinions based on them...

I think I have proven myself knowledgable on this issue, and should hope that this post meets your standards of "productive and accurate".




Good day.

Good day to you also...

It's night now... But I shall have a good one of those as well.

[ray_m]

It takes a long time for a company to win back trust and credibility. It took Hyundai 20 years since they started selling their crappy Excels to become a serious contender. And they worked really hard at it. Once consumers are screwed over by bad products or service, its tough to get them back. GM will need to keep those quality figures up there for a while before people think its anything more than a fluke. What usually happens is they come out with a hit, then they cheapen the hell out of it to the point where people start to notice, and nobody wants it anymore.

[Sevenernine]

It takes a long time for a company to win back trust and credibility. It took Hyundai 20 years since they started selling their crappy Excels to become a serious contender. And they worked really hard at it. Once consumers are screwed over by bad products or service, its tough to get them back. GM will need to keep those quality figures up there for a while before people think its anything more than a fluke. What usually happens is they come out with a hit, then they cheapen the hell out of it to the point where people start to notice, and nobody wants it anymore.


Exactly. American manufacturers may have been making good cars for the last 3-5 years... But for the 15-20 before that they were slouching.


lol. Very concise. Well done.

[CHARGERSHED]

im not going to do a complete response to this right now because im sending this from my phone... i just want to point out two things:

First of all, VW is not the only european car maker, so stop acting like they are. They have always made affordable vehicles.

Second, pointing out the positive things that have been done in the last few years, while completely ignoring the mass production of garbage vehicles during the 80s ans 90s is ridiculou.

Further, Wagoner got ****canned because he was doing a great job of running gm into the ground. Ill address the rest later.

Next time you respond to someone and attempt to make them look uneducated, you might wanna think out better responses.

Oh, and light trucks are in a different category in CAFE... its called "Light Trucks.. Dont compare apples and oranges.

Posted via LXFMobile

Well, at least we agree on Wagoner...

Okay, to clarify in advance, Chargershed, I have no personal qualms with you. we're just having an intelligent debate about what's factual and what isn't. So don't take this all too personally.

I hate to quote a quote, for the sake of space... But I gots ta! My responses to your responses will be in...

Let's go with Green.

Cute...way off base, but cute none the less...I have nothing personal aganist you either, you are like a lot of consumers, mis informed and misguided... well, not totally, you do own an LX, so somewhere the message got through..although, I can't speak for you, you may hate your vehicle or maybe you feel you got a lemon...anyways...


I'll start by addressing the Consumer Reports "bias". For the most part CR does a pretty fair job in evaluating products for it's members, they try to bring an unbiased, somewhat scientific way for people to make purchasing decisions on various products. this all goes by the wayside where automobiles are concerned. The data they use to give "predicted reliability" comes from their members( about 1.4 million of them) survey results over a period of time, perhaps as long as 5 years or more... no mention of the size of each survey sample, example; if 20 members sent in a survey on one vehicle and only 3 had "problems"( i'll come back to this, as a service advisor in the industry I do know what I am talking about when it comes to "problems") and 2 people sent in a survey on vehicle b and one of those had problems, then the predicted reliability for vehicle B would be worse than average, where vehicle A would be better than average...so you ask, where is the bias? CR also tests vehicles, if they were to suddenly come out and say that car b is a great car, they would be contradicting their own subscriber base, and therefore risking income. many people buy CR new cars magazine before they go shopping, but most never read the first part of that mag, where their methodology is disclosed...

let's talk about "problems" the JD Power Quality study and award goes to the manf. that has the "least problems per 100 vehicles". a quick scan of the numbers reveals that Buick and Jaguar (of all companies! Jag? wow...) hit the big time with only 122 problems per 100 vehicles, that equates to 1.22 problems per vehicle... Suzuki, A japanese company that produces high effecient low cost vehicles, brings up the rear at 262 or 2.62 problems per car. you stated that american name plates make up a far higher percentage of below average than the japanese vehicles, you failed to mention that of the bottom 7, well lets say 6 as Isuzu no longer exsists in this country, 3 are japanese and 3 are european, including Scion, which is a Toyota and Mazda, currently the darlings of the automotive press. But what is a "problem"? It would depend on who you ask. In JDP's case, they ask a small sample of owners...and a problem is anything they took the car into service for during the 1st 90 days of ownership. if a customer brings in their vehicle because their memory seats aren't working, and it turns out no one explained to them how it works, it's not broken mind you, it is still listed as a problem. If something is found on the vehicle that wasn't brought up by the customer, but is still fixed under warranty, it isn't considered a problem because the customer did not ask to have that issue addressed. Toyota dealers are instructed to look for and fix warranty issues, even if the customer never knew it was a problem... it keeps those JDP numbers down and quality surveys high. American service departments don't operate that way, and it kills these type of survey scores and perpetuates the stereotype of bad american quality....

Toyota's agregate JDP score is 159( the total of Lexus, toyota and scion) Ford's is 147( ford, lincoln and mercury) this is to show that I too, can manipulate figures to support my arguments...

In your initial post you spoke in broad generalities, I used specific examples to refute your claims and you have not brought any facts or examples to refute mine... you attempted this with the CAFE claims, with some info that you can read about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

but you failed to mention that the penalties were assesed because the big 3 were selling way more trucks than cars during the 90's and early 2000's and that small cars were only offered to try and offset some of these penalties by meeting CAFE standards for cars. as an example in 2004, Dodge trucks and suv's made up almost 70% of total vehicle sales for Chrysler...

You wanted to take me to task by my using a factual example of the VW Rabbit as a rebuttal to your statement, you try to dismiss it as a half truth. Your initial statement was a gross generality of european cars, I gave you a specific example. Yes it is true that many euro's don't offer 15k cars, but that's like saying all terrorists are arabs, I'm sure Tim Mcvey and his ilk would disagree.

Thanks for making my point about reliability, all cars have problems, about 1.7 per vehicle in the first 90 days alone, err according to JDP...

you say that advanced socialist euopean nations are "kicking our asses economically" but site no example or proof, which ones exactly?

You obviously weren't around in the 90's or you would know that cars like the GEO metro got 30 mpg in the city and like 45 or so on the highway...in 1990... do some research and get back to me...

but all of this sort of sidetracks the original intent of this thread, which is the disparity in which Chrysler is being treated as compared to GM... The White house wants GM to be smaller, leaner and yet, a smaller and leaner company already exsists in Chrysler and it is getting the red headed step-child treatment, they won't even commit to helping Chrysler, even if a deal with Fiat is reached. they will be gone for sure if a deal with Fiat isn't reached or if the White House determines the deal doesn't make sense... I give them a 25% chance to survive... which is too bad, it would have been interesting to see how their EV program would have done, the 2011 LX(LY) and the 200C etc. etc.

[poptones]

Uh, fellas...

CAFE averages were low the last 15 years or so for american cars because us carmakers have focused on selling (and consumers were buying) gi-nourmous SUVs and caravans because they were "safer." Light duty trucks have been EXEMPT from most cafe standards, it's been that way because the automakers lobbied for this loophole and congress backed them up on it. It's not a matter of it being "loosely enforced" it's a matter of light fduty trucks were, until very recently, just not considered in the overall CAFE. Hell, even Chrysler managed to get the MAGNUM classified as a light duty truck! Why do you think this was done?

Many american cars have had decent fuel economy - and I dunno about everyone, but my 87 Mustang went 300,000 miles before it died due to some weird electrical issue (likely eec relay) and got put down for restoration. One transmission rebuild at about 65,000 miles and no bottom end rebuilds, p&p heads and I was still dragging it (and winning) when it had over 250,000 on the clock. When the motor went to the shop for reman the tolerances were so close the cylinders didnt even need honing.

Now, I've had some junkers, too - but they were bought used, probably from crackheads. I've only had the Magnum a couple months but it's 4 years old now and pretty damn cherry, so somebody surely did something right.

One more thing: enough wiht the "socialism" nonsense. If we hadn't "socialized" fuel in this country pretty much forever we'd all be wishing for the old days of 4 dollar a gallon gas. We fight WARS over this stuff and thats even before all the subsidies uncle sam drops on energy costs. How much money have taxpayers dropped on ethanol over the years? I didn't hear Rush or FOX news or anyone else whining about "socialism" when the money was flowing free toward mega-agribusiness and energy companies.

[Sevenernine]

You seem to be basing your argument over the last few years, which ive stated is not reallyu what im talking about. And i didnt manipulate any numbers. i posted a graph. stated the facts... you are trying to attack my credibility versus my actual statements. As a result, i will n,o longer be able to continue this discussion. I never said anything about not liking my car, or having a lemon. I simply pointed out the "generalizations" that exist of por american automotive quality. the fact remains that the numbers dont lie, and if you think they do than you are lying to yourself. first cr is biased, now im manipulating jd powes numbers?

Make up your mind, you cant have it both ways. Again, attacking me by saying thinks like "you must not have been around in the 90s" and "just because youre not happy with your car" is ridiculouis. you know the forum in which we are debating is full of american car enthusiasts, and so youjre trying to paint me as a young anti-ameriocan car supporter in order to refute my credibility.

Im only 25, so i suppose youre sort of right in the swnse that i wasnt driving for most of the 90s... but how is that pertinant? im educated and can read, i dont need to have been driving to know the facts.

truthfully, you should kind of be embarassed for your method of arguing.


im sure youre going to try to say im bowing out because you have won, but the truth is that you failed to refute the facts i presented and instead focused on tiny details of my post, taken out of context. Meh. whatever you have to do, i guess.

To clarify: I love my dodge, and i loved my olds before that. Im not a child, and i am educated on these issues.
Well, at least we agree on Wagoner...



Cute...way off base, but cute none the less...I have nothing personal aganist you either, you are like a lot of consumers, mis informed and misguided... well, not totally, you do own an LX, so somewhere the message got through..although, I can't speak for you, you may hate your vehicle or maybe you feel you got a lemon...anyways...


I'll start by addressing the Consumer Reports "bias". For the most part CR does a pretty fair job in evaluating products for it's members, they try to bring an unbiased, somewhat scientific way for people to make purchasing decisions on various products. this all goes by the wayside where automobiles are concerned. The data they use to give "predicted reliability" comes from their members( about 1.4 million of them) survey results over a period of time, perhaps as long as 5 years or more... no mention of the size of each survey sample, example; if 20 members sent in a survey on one vehicle and only 3 had "problems"( i'll come back to this, as a service advisor in the industry I do know what I am talking about when it comes to "problems") and 2 people sent in a survey on vehicle b and one of those had problems, then the predicted reliability for vehicle B would be worse than average, where vehicle A would be better than average...so you ask, where is the bias? CR also tests vehicles, if they were to suddenly come out and say that car b is a great car, they would be contradicting their own subscriber base, and therefore risking income. many people buy CR new cars magazine before they go shopping, but most never read the first part of that mag, where their methodology is disclosed...

let's talk about "problems" the JD Power Quality study and award goes to the manf. that has the "least problems per 100 vehicles". a quick scan of the numbers reveals that Buick and Jaguar (of all companies! Jag? wow...) hit the big time with only 122 problems per 100 vehicles, that equates to 1.22 problems per vehicle... Suzuki, A japanese company that produces high effecient low cost vehicles, brings up the rear at 262 or 2.62 problems per car. you stated that american name plates make up a far higher percentage of below average than the japanese vehicles, you failed to mention that of the bottom 7, well lets say 6 as Isuzu no longer exsists in this country, 3 are japanese and 3 are european, including Scion, which is a Toyota and Mazda, currently the darlings of the automotive press. But what is a "problem"? It would depend on who you ask. In JDP's case, they ask a small sample of owners...and a problem is anything they took the car into service for during the 1st 90 days of ownership. if a customer brings in their vehicle because their memory seats aren't working, and it turns out no one explained to them how it works, it's not broken mind you, it is still listed as a problem. If something is found on the vehicle that wasn't brought up by the customer, but is still fixed under warranty, it isn't considered a problem because the customer did not ask to have that issue addressed. Toyota dealers are instructed to look for and fix warranty issues, even if the customer never knew it was a problem... it keeps those JDP numbers down and quality surveys high. American service departments don't operate that way, and it kills these type of survey scores and perpetuates the stereotype of bad american quality....

Toyota's agregate JDP score is 159( the total of Lexus, toyota and scion) Ford's is 147( ford, lincoln and mercury) this is to show that I too, can manipulate figures to support my arguments...

In your initial post you spoke in broad generalities, I used specific examples to refute your claims and you have not brought any facts or examples to refute mine... you attempted this with the CAFE claims, with some info that you can read about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

but you failed to mention that the penalties were assesed because the big 3 were selling way more trucks than cars during the 90's and early 2000's and that small cars were only offered to try and offset some of these penalties by meeting CAFE standards for cars. as an example in 2004, Dodge trucks and suv's made up almost 70% of total vehicle sales for Chrysler...

You wanted to take me to task by my using a factual example of the VW Rabbit as a rebuttal to your statement, you try to dismiss it as a half truth. Your initial statement was a gross generality of european cars, I gave you a specific example. Yes it is true that many euro's don't offer 15k cars, but that's like saying all terrorists are arabs, I'm sure Tim Mcvey and his ilk would disagree.

Thanks for making my point about reliability, all cars have problems, about 1.7 per vehicle in the first 90 days alone, err according to JDP...

you say that advanced socialist euopean nations are "kicking our asses economically" but site no example or proof, which ones exactly?

You obviously weren't around in the 90's or you would know that cars like the GEO metro got 30 mpg in the city and like 45 or so on the highway...in 1990... do some research and get back to me...

but all of this sort of sidetracks the original intent of this thread, which is the disparity in which Chrysler is being treated as compared to GM... The White house wants GM to be smaller, leaner and yet, a smaller and leaner company already exsists in Chrysler and it is getting the red headed step-child treatment, they won't even commit to helping Chrysler, even if a deal with Fiat is reached. they will be gone for sure if a deal with Fiat isn't reached or if the White House determines the deal doesn't make sense... I give them a 25% chance to survive... which is too bad, it would have been interesting to see how their EV program would have done, the 2011 LX(LY) and the 200C etc. etc.

Posted via LXFMobile

[Sevenernine]

sorry bout the typos. im sending this from my phone again.

You seem to be basing your argument over the last few years, which ive stated is not reallyu what im talking about. And i didnt manipulate any numbers. i posted a graph. stated the facts... you are trying to attack my credibility versus my actual statements. As a result, i will n,o longer be able to continue this discussion. I never said anything about not liking my car, or having a lemon. I simply pointed out the "generalizations" that exist of por american automotive quality. the fact remains that the numbers dont lie, and if you think they do than you are lying to yourself. first cr is biased, now im manipulating jd powes numbers?

Make up your mind, you cant have it both ways. Again, attacking me by saying thinks like "you must not have been around in the 90s" and "just because youre not happy with your car" is ridiculouis. you know the forum in which we are debating is full of american car enthusiasts, and so youjre trying to paint me as a young anti-ameriocan car supporter in order to refute my credibility.

Im only 25, so i suppose youre sort of right in the swnse that i wasnt driving for most of the 90s... but how is that pertinant? im educated and can read, i dont need to have been driving to know the facts.

truthfully, you should kind of be embarassed for your method of arguing.


im sure youre going to try to say im bowing out because you have won, but the truth is that you failed to refute the facts i presented and instead focused on tiny details of my post, taken out of context. Meh. whatever you have to do, i guess.

To clarify: I love my dodge, and i loved my olds before that. Im not a child, and i am educated on these issues.


Posted via LXFMobile

Posted via LXFMobile

[uwsacf]

My first car was a 1954 Plymouth Savoy, followed by a 1956 Ford Club Sedan - a 1969 GTX - my keeper a 1968 Plymouth Barracuda - a 1969 Nova 396/375 - a 1972 Newport [still have it] - various Dodge Rams thru the years, since Chrysler left me no choice for a V8 and RWD, a 1996 Impala SS, yes V8 RWD!!! wOOt...and now my MSRT.....but......

My daily driver is a 2003 CV Sport - bought new - that now has 168,000 miles on it as my daily driver...

My father had Fords and I hated having to work on them every week - yes, every week - said I'd never own one.

But GM quit making the Impala B-body so now what - yep, the only thing left at the time - the Sport...

It gets 26 mpg every day on my 122 mile commute - and I've had only minor issues with it...

Taxi companies buy beat up CV cop cars - throw a set of pads on them and drive them for another 300k.

Sounds like the quality is there to me - and I hate to admit it..

My Impala gets 26 mpg as well, but it has every known bug that GM could throw at it - not just mine either -we have a whole forum of bugs www.impalassforum.com - such as rear brakes that don't work - Dexcool problems - trans cooler issues etc... the seats suck - the radio sucks yada yada...

The MSRT brought me back to my Mopar Heritage [doesn't hurt I grew up down the road from Big Daddy] and so far it appears to be a good reliable Mopar...

What's not to like - let's just hope car guys are trying to keep Chrysler alive...

BTW 26 mpg in either the Impala or CV is much better than a "supposed" 26 in a Camry...especially in a wreck...

and you do KNOW what a 10 year old Corola looks like - right?

[PowerWagon896]

Would you keep your job if this was your legacy?

"Wagoner, who had presided over the company's rapid decline in the past five years and had run the automaker since 2000, was forced out at the request of the autos panel headed by former investment banker Steve Rattner. A majority of GM's board will also be replaced.
"We are left to look back and say that Wagoner's appointment as both chairman and CEO in 2003 was little more than an act to ensure the dynasty of GM boardroom arrogance and failure continued," said Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at brokerage BGC Partners.
Wheeldon said Wagoner's departure had been all but inevitable since the automaker sought government funds and said he was disappointed the authorities had not insisted on an external replacement.
Wagoner protege and GM President and Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson was named as the new CEO. Wagoner's departure came as the Obama administration came under fire for not blocking bonuses to executives at American International Group Inc."

As far as Chrysler goes given the 30 day ultimatum it didn't take them long to form the alliance with Fiat.
I love my Charger but if all of the big three had given a green alternative maybe they would not be in the trouble they are in to-day. We used to have a saying in the trade I was in "Those who do the paying are the ones who do the saying" At this point the government is doing the paying so it should be expected they should be doing the saying. As far as GM goes when the consumer was doing the paying they did not want to listen and they are now paying the price. IMO

Are you kidding? You're actually inferring that GM knows how to run their company, a concept which I find laughable and nostalgic. If they knew how to run their company, they wouldn't be in the total mess that they're in. If they understood how things work, they would have been trying to compete with Toyota, Honda, Hundai, BMW, Mercedes and all the other foreign manufacturers instead of using 1970's era rhetoric about how "them thar furrign ve-hikkles ain't nuthin but trash" and selling their vehicles by convincing people that the competition was non-existant and that a GM product was the only way to go. The ONLY people that I know that have bought a Chevy (corvettes and camaros excepted) or Pontiac come from a long line of GM owners who won't buy anything else (or people in areas where there are no foreign car dealers). The people who shop around before buying tend to steer towards the foreign makes because they DON'T suck. I had it out for Chrysler until I got my 300C. Now I'm hoping they survive. But even after owning my Saab (which I loved dearly) I was cursing GM on a weekly basis and hoping that they would just sell Saab and end their reign of tyranny over them. Saab being sold to the Swedish government is a godsend to me, because now as far as I'm concerned GM can pay the price for producing garbage.
We also have a 2004 Cadillac Deville that I would LOVE to get rid of (it was inherited), because as far as I can tell it's a badge-engineered Impala with some nice leather and plastic wood on the dashboard. When Caddy is selling chevy's, you know it's time to let them die.

As a 58 year old GM employee just 2 years from retirement, I can attest to the "GM arrogance and failure"!

I can assure you that it does not end @ the "boardroom" & permiates every layer upon layer upon multiple layer of GM management.

As 10s of thousands of UAW workers leave the employ of GM, the salary workforce cuts are a mere fraction of the hourly cuts leaving fewer & fewer "workers" building cars to support the bloated corporate structure.

What Obama did W/GM was overdue by @ least 6 years. Too bad the corporation was too busy protecting their little "fifedoms" & playing politics for their own financial benefit to save the company.

IMO: GM helped drag down Ford & Chrysler W/the "employee pricing for everbody" scheme back in 2005.

[Sevenernine]

and you do KNOW what a 10 year old Corola looks like - right?


Touche, good sir. Touche.



Ew.


Hey... I never said I wanted to own one of these cars, I was simply pointing out the facts. Haha.



I traditionally don't like the styling on most japanese cars... Although I"d probably shank someone to get a pristine 97 Supra RZ.

And actually, I like the new 350Zs too. But again, people like us (yes... "us"... Hemi Drivers) are after a little more than economy and reliability. Hopefully my Maggie will run for years and years to come without issue. At least until it's paid off, I'm out of college, and have a fulltime, good paying "grown up" job.


Then I can just turn it into a project car, if it fails.



...maybe figure out a way to fit a Viper motor in it. haha

[AtlantaSRT8]

There’s no deal with Fiat yet, there are serious issue to overcome. What Fiat wanted was a joint deal to sell cars I.E. fiat would market cars in Europe for Chrysler and Chrysler would market Fiat’s in the US, Fiat did not want to invest any money or take on ant of Chrysler’s det. Hell Cerberus owns Chrysler and has huge resources and won’t invest in money in Chrysler, why would Fiat, trust me Chrysler is dead in the water, there will be no deal with Fiat.

[Schen]

"According to The Wall Street Journal, Cerberus Capital Management is set to shed its stake in Chrysler as part of the conditions surrounding the company's bailout arrangement with the U.S. government.

According to the article, the financial paper cites an anonymous source within the Obama administration as effectively saying that "Cerberus' equity stake no longer holds value" and "...the firm's ownership will come to an end."

According to the WSJ's sources, Cerberus will still hold on to a controlling stake in Chrysler Financial, but its stake in the automaker itself will likely be eviscerated. Such a move could make it easier for Chrysler and Fiat to come to terms on their alliance within the next 30 days (a deadline given to them by the Obama administration yesterday)."

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/31/cerberus-to-reportedly-lose-stake-in-chrysler-as-part-of-bailout/

Screw it all.:panic:

--RS

[Sevenernine]

There’s no deal with Fiat yet, there are serious issue to overcome. What Fiat wanted was a joint deal to sell cars I.E. fiat would market cars in Europe for Chrysler and Chrysler would market Fiat’s in the US, Fiat did not want to invest any money or take on ant of Chrysler’s det. Hell Cerberus owns Chrysler and has huge resources and won’t invest in money in Chrysler, why would Fiat, trust me Chrysler is dead in the water, there will be no deal with Fiat.

That's bull$hit btw.

Not in the sense that you're wrong, but in the sense that it's a very crappy way for Cerberus to handle it.


They don't wanna risk investing the money to revive Chrysler, but you can bet your @ss they'll be there to collect the check if they do come back.

[CHARGERSHED]

You seem to be basing your argument over the last few years, which ive stated is not reallyu what im talking about. And i didnt manipulate any numbers. i posted a graph. stated the facts... you are trying to attack my credibility versus my actual statements. As a result, i will n,o longer be able to continue this discussion. I never said anything about not liking my car, or having a lemon. I simply pointed out the "generalizations" that exist of por american automotive quality. the fact remains that the numbers dont lie, and if you think they do than you are lying to yourself. first cr is biased, now im manipulating jd powes numbers?

Make up your mind, you cant have it both ways. Again, attacking me by saying thinks like "you must not have been around in the 90s" and "just because youre not happy with your car" is ridiculouis. you know the forum in which we are debating is full of american car enthusiasts, and so youjre trying to paint me as a young anti-ameriocan car supporter in order to refute my credibility.

Im only 25, so i suppose youre sort of right in the swnse that i wasnt driving for most of the 90s... but how is that pertinant? im educated and can read, i dont need to have been driving to know the facts.

truthfully, you should kind of be embarassed for your method of arguing.


im sure youre going to try to say im bowing out because you have won, but the truth is that you failed to refute the facts i presented and instead focused on tiny details of my post, taken out of context. Meh. whatever you have to do, i guess.

To clarify: I love my dodge, and i loved my olds before that. Im not a child, and i am educated on these issues.


Posted via LXFMobile

First, I am sorry you chose to end our debate, I do not feel that I won, simply because I was unsuccessful in opening your mind. My only suggestion would be to read and re-read a post before you reply, I never said you didn't like your dodge, I did say that I couldn't speak for you about it. I was trying to grasp where you are coming from. We do share a comon ground, we both love our dodges and I also owned a few GM's in my time.

For the record, I stand behind everything I've said. I research and presented facts that anyone can check. I don't believe that I "attacked" you, you made a general statement, I rebutted the statement using a very specific example. I used specific examples to prove a point, that; the average consumer, such as yourself, has stereotypical beliefs about vehicles in general... they use stereotypes as a large basis for decisions in general about all things, cars, people and places. Don't get me wrong, stereotypes have some basis in fact, otherwise no one would believe them...but, you can't just throw out blanket statements and not expect them to be challenged, and you can't be hurt when someone pulls out a specific example to trample on the blanket. Don't mistake stereotypes for facts, it makes you seem less intellegent than you are, example, you stated; "could we imagine any american car maker hitting the CAFE average back in the 90's?"... It was kind of a flip comment and I was waiting for some data to coincide with your remark, but you just let it hang there... I was your age back in '91(where did all the time go?) so I knew that cars weighed about 7-800 lbs less than they do today, crash standards were no where near where they are today and cars as a whole got better milage than they do today, here's an example; the 1992 GEO metro XFI got 53 city and 58 highway MPG... they were built in Canada and counted towards GM's north American vehicle production CAFE numbers, so yes, I can imagine that... because they actually did it.

I hope you take time to read this post, you do make some valid points about overall quality of vehicles, but most vehicles available today are way better than they were 15-20 years ago; If I asked, which would you rather have, a 1998 camry or a 2008 camry, it's no contest, the 2008 wins every time... if I change the 2008 camry for a 2008 malibu, again it's no contest the malibu wins...but if the malibu is a 2004? hmmm, I think the '98 Camry wins that one...I don't think I could debate that...

[done]

Let give you guys some more data to ponder. An assumption has been made about quality and the willingness of the consumer to purchase and that relationship to the current state of the auto industry.

For the years 2003 to 2007 GM produced just under 10,000,000 vehicles which of course found 10,000,000 buyers. That is the customers willing to buy GM products. For the same years, Toyota produced just a few hundred thousand fewer cars each year. Again they found buyers.

Now GM started losing money in 2006 and Toyota did not. For the sake of this discussion, let's ignore 2008 and 2009 where all car sales are off 40%, more or less and made the problem severe.

Why did GM lose money in those years and Toyota did not? They sold about the same number of vehicles and the average sales price of GM's product was a bit higher than Toyotas.

The problem then is not consumer appeal, but rather the problem is cost control. GM could not or would not and Toyota did keep costs in line. So the problem is not marketing (product line) or CAFE, it is a failure of management to control costs.

[Darthvader]

Costs that were largely unrelated to building the actual cars.


Let give you guys some more data to ponder. An assumption has been made about quality and the willingness of the consumer to purchase and that relationship to the current state of the auto industry.

For the years 2003 to 2007 GM produced just under 10,000,000 vehicles which of course found 10,000,000 buyers. That is the customers willing to buy GM products. For the same years, Toyota produced just a few hundred thousand fewer cars each year. Again they found buyers.

Now GM started losing money in 2006 and Toyota did not. For the sake of this discussion, let's ignore 2008 and 2009 where all car sales are off 40%, more or less and made the problem severe.

Why did GM lose money in those years and Toyota did not? They sold about the same number of vehicles and the average sales price of GM's product was a bit higher than Toyotas.

The problem then is not consumer appeal, but rather the problem is cost control. GM could not or would not and Toyota did keep costs in line. So the problem is not marketing (product line) or CAFE, it is a failure of management to control costs.

[Sevenernine]

First, I am sorry you chose to end our debate, I do not feel that I won, simply because I was unsuccessful in opening your mind. My only suggestion would be to read and re-read a post before you reply, I never said you didn't like your dodge, I did say that I couldn't speak for you about it. I was trying to grasp where you are coming from. We do share a comon ground, we both love our dodges and I also owned a few GM's in my time.

"I can't speak for you, you may hate your vehicle or maybe you feel you got a lemon...anyways..."



For the record, I stand behind everything I've said. I research and presented facts that anyone can check. I don't believe that I "attacked" you, you made a general statement, I rebutted the statement using a very specific example.

"you are like a lot of consumers, mis informed and misguided..."
"You obviously weren't around in the 90's or you would know that cars like the GEO metro got 30 mpg in the city and like 45 or so on the highway"

I used specific examples to prove a point, that; the average consumer, such as yourself, has stereotypical beliefs about vehicles in general... they use stereotypes as a large basis for decisions in general about all things, cars, people and places. Don't get me wrong, stereotypes have some basis in fact, otherwise no one would believe them...but, you can't just throw out blanket statements and not expect them to be challenged, and you can't be hurt when someone pulls out a specific example to trample on the blanket. Don't mistake stereotypes for facts, it makes you seem less intellegent than you are, example, you stated; "could we imagine any american car maker hitting the CAFE average back in the 90's?"... It was kind of a flip comment and I was waiting for some data to coincide with your remark, but you just let it hang there... I was your age back in '91(where did all the time go?) so I knew that cars weighed about 7-800 lbs less than they do today, crash standards were no where near where they are today and cars as a whole got better milage than they do today, here's an example; the 1992 GEO metro XFI got 53 city and 58 highway MPG... they were built in Canada and counted towards GM's north American vehicle production CAFE numbers, so yes, I can imagine that... because they actually did it.

I hope you take time to read this post, you do make some valid points about overall quality of vehicles, but most vehicles available today are way better than they were 15-20 years ago; If I asked, which would you rather have, a 1998 camry or a 2008 camry, it's no contest, the 2008 wins every time... if I change the 2008 camry for a 2008 malibu, again it's no contest the malibu wins...but if the malibu is a 2004? hmmm, I think the '98 Camry wins that one...I don't think I could debate that...

You're right... You didn't do any of those things </sarcasm>.


You talk about these specfic facts that you cited, but the only specifics you spoke of where prices of cars.

Yeah, I got those Cafe numbers from Wikipedia. Who cares? Are they incorrect? No.

You're very sly at what you're trying to do. You twist words and try to make it appear as if you've been the evidence producing beacon of logic here, and I'm just some general consumer yahoo spouting "generalizations" and "misconceptions".


What facts, exactly, do you speak of? All I saw were price differences with the claim. You keep stating these "Facts" with no proof other than your word. Consumer Reports is biased, JDP was skewed in favor of American cars being more unreliable because of problems that were reported by Japanese service shops, but not American (or whatever you were trying to get at there).

You mis-cited the information you did provide (The Camry was 3rd, in 2006, not 4th).

All the information you provided was for 2008+ Model vehicles.


So please, tell me where these Specific and Accurate facts are that you posted.



You aren't right just because you say that you're right and I'm wrong. You need some actual data there chief. And stop acting like this is an argument about vehicles made in the last several years, because it isn't, and it never was. You continuing to go back to citing facts about 2008/2009 vehicles goes to show that you have no true evidence to refute the fact that America made ****ty cars for about 2 decades. YES, that's a generalization, I'm aware there were some good cars made in that time... But the MAJORITY of them weren't. Stop twisting words, although I'm sure you'll take at this too.



And did you really reference the Geo Metro as a shining example of American quality?


(oh, and to answer your question about Socialist European nations, it's not limited to Europe. Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France...etc... Some of these nations are not currently under a 'socialist' party leadership, but the fact of the matter is that they are generally socialist. Are they 'kicking our ass" as I stated before? I don't know... But what I do know is that using China and USSR as the ONLY Socialist Examples is misleading and shameful.

This isn't the 50's, and Modern Socialism has a completely different face than the socialism that you seem to be so afraid of. Anyway, irrelevant, and I digress.


And once last thing: Your last paragraph completely proves my point about you not understanding this issue at its core. It isn't an issue of the last 4 years. I'm sure I'll have to point that out at least a dozen more times though.

[PowerWagon896]

Let give you guys some more data to ponder. An assumption has been made about quality and the willingness of the consumer to purchase and that relationship to the current state of the auto industry.

For the years 2003 to 2007 GM produced just under 10,000,000 vehicles which of course found 10,000,000 buyers. That is the customers willing to buy GM products. For the same years, Toyota produced just a few hundred thousand fewer cars each year. Again they found buyers.

Now GM started losing money in 2006 and Toyota did not. For the sake of this discussion, let's ignore 2008 and 2009 where all car sales are off 40%, more or less and made the problem severe.

Why did GM lose money in those years and Toyota did not? They sold about the same number of vehicles and the average sales price of GM's product was a bit higher than Toyotas.

The problem then is not consumer appeal, but rather the problem is cost control. GM could not or would not and Toyota did keep costs in line. So the problem is not marketing (product line) or CAFE, it is a failure of management to control costs.

All true, however GM also lost market share because it was only willing to concentrate on the vehicles that made the most profit. I.E. SUVs & pickup trucks. The (high quality) small fuel efficent car market share was lost. As far as pickup trucks go, they were concentrating on 4 dooor toy/luxury trucks & not the standard cab, 8' bed farm/work trucks that some prefer. Again, a market share lost. Ever try to put a shotgun in a case behind the seat of a standard cab Chevy Silverado? Not gonna happen W/the standard interior. @ least not W/O tearing the rear cab liner up as you force the case behind the center section that does not move forward or fold down.:banghead:

It also had to do W/CAFE & numerous time we had easels W/posters on them @ the plant entrance urging us to call our congressman & voice our opposition to CAFE standards. This was ironic seeing as how we produced aluminum 4 cylinder engine blocks & heads. @ the time we wouldn't even have been working W/O CAFE standards.

2 years ago, before the last round of gas price hikes, GM decided it no longer needed as many 4 cylinder engines & they decided to close the plant I work in. Even though the market changed, internal politics & the preservasion of executive standing in the corporation would not allow an about face, even though the plant where the work was sent could not produce a quality part. Our plant is still closing in the next month despite the fact that GM can not produce the parts it needs to build the cars that the market is calling for.

THAT is one of the many reasons why GM is in the shape it is in. It squandered 100s of millions of $$$$$ all in the name of corporate politics & they WILL NOT admit that they made a mistake & they hurried & destroyed the tooling that we had on hand to produce product so as to "burn the bridges behind them". Heaven forbid that the head of GM Powertrain be caught W/egg on his face.

100s of UAW members lost or ARE LOOSING their livelyhood & GM is W/O product it desperately needs just so some arrogant, incompetant executive could cover his A$$.

[IES99]

Costs that were largely unrelated to building the actual cars.

I admit I wouldn't know how to run a company, so this is not to debate, just wondering:

Question: What costs was GM having that were unrelated to building the cars?

If they were, why didn't they know enough to get rid of those costs?

[PowerWagon896]

I admit I wouldn't know how to run a company, so this is not to debate, just wondering:

Question: What costs was GM having that were unrelated to building the cars?

If they were, why didn't they know enough to get rid of those costs?



See the previous post for just 1 example.

[done]

All true, however GM also lost market share because it was only willing to concentrate on the vehicles that made the most profit. I.E. SUVs & pickup trucks. The (high quality) small fuel efficent car market share was lost. As far as pickup trucks go, they were concentrating on 4 dooor toy/luxury trucks & not the standard cab, 8' bed farm/work trucks that some prefer. Again, a market share lost. Ever try to put a shotgun in a case behind the seat of a standard cab Chevy Silverado? Not gonna happen W/the standard interior. @ least not W/O tearing the rear cab liner up as you force the case behind the center section that does not move forward or fold down.:banghead:

It is a reasonable decison to concentrate on what is selling and is profitable. In the 2003 to 2007 time period I am referencing, that is what the customers were buying. GM lost market share due to an increase in the total market, not because they sold fewer cars.


It also had to do W/CAFE & numerous time swe had easels W/posters on them @ the plant entrance urging us to call our congressman & voice our opposition to CAFE standards. This was ironic seeing as how we produced aluminum 4 cylinder engine blocks & heads. @ the time we wouldn't even have been working W/O CAFE standards.

Isn't it reasonble to assume that the call for increases in CAFE would have forced GM to reduce the manufacture of profitable trucks and SUV's to make historically unprofitable small cars.


2 years ago, before the last round of gas price hikes, GM decided it no longer needed as many 4 cylinder engines & they decided to close the plant I work in. Even though the market changed, internal politics & the preservasion of executive standing in the corporation would not allow an about face, even though the plant where the work was sent could not produce a quality part. Our plant is still closing in the next month despite the fact that GM can not produce the parts it needs to build the cars that the market is calling for.

Business history is replete with bad management decisons. Other than the "government planners" thinking that there is a demand for small cars, where is that demand showing up in the current market.


THAT is one of the many reasons why GM is in the shape it is in. It squandered 100s of millions of $$$$$ all in the name of corporate politics & they WILL NOT admit that they made a mistake & they hurried & destroyed the tooling that we had on hand to produce product so as to "burn the bridges behind them". Heaven forbid that the head of GM Powertrain be caught W/egg on his face.

I don't doubt that. As I posited, GM's problems were not in the product lineup but in the decisions being made.

100s of UAW members lost or ARE LOOSING their livelyhood & GM is W/O product it desperately needs just so some incompetant executive could cover his A$$.

It is not clear that GM is w/o product. The entire market is currently depressed. I am not ready to buy the "car czar's" philosophy of small is in demand yet.

You should also recognize that the UAW is not entirely blameless in the cost control issues that besiege GM.

Please note that I am not picking an arguement with you. Your comments simply provide a way to continue the discussion.

[DMAG]

I admit I wouldn't know how to run a company, so this is not to debate, just wondering:

Question: What costs was GM having that were unrelated to building the cars?

If they were, why didn't they know enough to get rid of those costs?



Healthcare, retirement, legacy costs.

[MGM]

Deal with Fiat Is done
That little car, that thing got a hemi :-)

[PowerWagon896]

It is not clear that GM is w/o product. The entire market is currently depressed. I am not ready to buy the "car czar's" philosophy of small is in demand yet.

You should also recognize that the UAW is not entirely blameless in the cost control issues that besiege GM.

Please note that I am not picking an arguement with you. Your comments simply provide a way to continue the discussion.

Our wages, not including heath care are in line W/Toyota. Heath care is not paid by the company in Toyota's case but profit sharing covers the cost that the employees incur.

Toyota's CEO makes about $500,000 a year, Rick Wagoner & the person that took his place made in the neighborhood of $15,000,000 last year. Yes they have defferred that salary, but deffered does not mean the same as forfeited.

Furthermore, as UAW jobs are cut, the already bloated salary positions are not being cut @ the same %s.

Our plant had a salary position for every 3.9 UAW position. When we successfully bid against the Mexican counterpart for work, the UAW made GM post a ratio of 1 Salary position for every 15 hourly in the Mexican plant. They actually had to add salary positions to make that 15:1 ratio. Do you actually think it takes 4 times as many supervisors/support personael to run a plant in the USA as it does in Mexico?

GM management has used blaming the UAW as a crutch to cover up there bloated beurocracy.

An executive in a Japanese auto plant must rise through the ranks in 1 location until he has masterd & excelled in all of the positions from top to bottom before he can move to the corporte level. That way, there is accountability for mistakes.

GM coddles "wonderboys" & swiftly moves them through the corporation, never keeping them in one place for more than 3 years, usually less. They cook the books, neglect maintenance, make the #s look good & move on before the chickens come home to roost. Some patsy is moved in behind them to take the fall for the morass that ensues when the chickens do come home to roost.

Few UAW members hire into GM W/a bad or indifferent attitude, but the mind numbing enviorment & senseless decisions make it neccessary to conform to the status quo.

When a sports team has a loosing season, you 1st fire the coach. A team is no better than the leadership & if the leadership is not good, the whole team will suffer. The plight of the North American Auto industry is a result of years of poor leadership & if the UAW membership is @ fault, they are the product of that leadership. They have been lead by example.

[Fastmover]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZMagnum
http://lxforums.com/board/images/bbcodemanager/simple/link.gif (http://www.lxforums.com/board/showthread.php?p=2157097#post2157097)
The big 3 are not making lower quality cars. It's just the opposite. How can anyone say this or believe this that's a member here? Do you not like the car you drive? Why are you here? I don't understand. I believe the big 3 USED to have poorer quality than Japanese auto makers but that was back in the 80's. Things have changed since then.


I AGREE.....U.S. vehicle quality is WAY up today, but the media won't spread that word.

Agree 100%. I've owned 6 Chryslers now and they've all been great, reliable cars.

AGREED. I'm on my 3rd Dodge. First 2 had their issues. Warranty took care of those. I'm now 2 years in to my R/T with ZERO defects.

[ray_m]

Here's the difference between the domestics and imports. Toyota, Nissan, and Honda all sell high quality small cars. They are not big money makers, maybe even lose some money per copy. But the important thing is that they bring in first-time buyers. Think of what most responsible young people want to drive these days. They are high quality affordable cars, reliable, and not embarrassing to be seen in.

They expose a fresh generation of consumers to good entry level products, and then as they get older and make more money, they don't hesitate to trade in for that company's next better model, moving up the ladder where they eventually switch to Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura. It's called taking care of your customer by taking a hit up front, and the customer in turn brings in long-term business via repeat sales and word of mouth advertising.

Now where is GM's plan for attracting the next generation of buyers?
.
.
.
(crickets chirping)
.
.
hint: There is none. Same for Chrylser and somewhat less so, Ford.

If anything, people ought to be pissed off as hell for what these clowns did to our economy and industrial base through years of neglect and mismanagement. They were being told 20 years ago, but didn't listen. Instead, they went on autopilot and sold the American workers dreams and their families livelihoods down the river, all while congratulating themselves with cash awards and stock deals the amounts of which we won't see in a lifetime. There is nothing to defend.

[BrilliantBlackHemi]

My God!.....what a debate this has become. Geesh. :blam:

[poptones]

Ya know, much of this is really prettty ridiculous beyond the blowing off steam level. If you have a job, it is not in your best interest to "blow off" or sell off market share. Some of these conspiracy theories just sound like scattering blame to the wind. CEOs getting bonuses no matter how they lead is a bad management plan, but it sure don't look to me like the american car market as a whole has been on "autopilot" these last several years.

Chrysler has produced a line of what could only be called boutique" cars, and these do not seem designed simply to cater to old, fat men (no matter that I am an old, fat man). The 300 is a consistent auto show performer as was the Prowler before that. I dunno where y'all live but for a time there you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a PT Cruiser. Those were based on the (also popular show car) the neon and getting what, like 25-30MPG?

The Cadillac ST looked pretty radical when it first came out, now how many cars look like the Cad? Cadillac had a terrible reputation for quality in the 80s and produced ugly boxes with too much chrome stuck at each end, now they make what is regarded by many one of the most stylish performance luxury sedans around.

This may not be emblematic of the whole line, but you cannot disregard the many victories of the last decade. I used to love old cars, but given the choice between a '68 Camaro, Mustang or 73 Challenger and one produced today, I know which line I would be standing in - what about you? The old Mustang had CARDBOARD ventilation ducts, for crying out loud! I spent hours porting heads, intake, changing rockers, tweaking suspension on my '87 Mustang just to pull it into the high 12's - now you can just about do that with one off the showroom floor! My neighbor spent thousands of dollars (800 bucks just on pistons, and that was in the early 80s) building a 413 max wedge to go in his '73 Challenger all to get maybe 500HP - you can do that nowdays with a few bolt-on parts. How many 50 year olds care whether their car pulls 500HP? Of course these are aimed at young people - just look at the Mustang! My 87 cost 17 grand and a decade later you could still buy a hot Mustang for 20K.

I guess many of y'all were not around when detroit cars looked like shoeboxes and drove like soapbox derby cars, so its hard without that perspective. I had a 1981 Cougar that was the biggest piece of crap you'd ever want to drive - it was a midsize sedan that weighed 300 pounds less than my 87 Mustang (in spite of each having pretty much the same equipment level and the Cougar having a gigantic old school AC compressor sitting atop its horrible 255 V8) and had some of the worse electrics you will find this side of a 70's Jaguar.

Contrary to what some seem to think, I betcha we will soon and forever look back on the last decade or so as the last, best days of the american performance car era.

[ray_m]

I realize I shouldn't be in a Chrysler forum knocking Chrysler, I want to see them succeed. But like the prez says, their problems have been kicked down the road for years, and now we're at the end of the road.

Chrysler has a history of producing one-hit wonders. The latest of which is the 300 - and I like mine very much. Lets hope they come out with some more hits, along with bringing out a solid entry-level model to take them through lean times such as this.

[poptones]

Well, call it socialism if you like but it's much cheaper to prop up a failing car company for a few months than it will be to support those put out of work for a few years. If Chrysler (or any of them) goes bankrupt it's not just bad news for the car industry it's bad news for all those pensions, and bad news for all those now going on government health care, and bad news for the crime rate.

None of us live in isolation. We pay a price for being part of an advanced society and our responsibility is not just to ourselves.

[desquirrel]

The whole thing is a political sideshow. Any "saving" of the US auto industry involves crushing the UAW. This administration does not want to be seen as harming one of their voting blocks. Hence you let them go bankrupt so you're off the hook. In other words, in 1 months time, GM's and Chry plans will still be "unacceptable".

[1BIGDAN]

All points taken and good. The bottom line is people can't afford to buy $25,000 cars right now. Doesn't matter if it's a "green" car or not. If cars were still being sold we wouldn't be typing about this.

[CHARGERSHED]

You're right... You didn't do any of those things </sarcasm>.


You talk about these specfic facts that you cited, but the only specifics you spoke of where prices of cars.

Yeah, I got those Cafe numbers from Wikipedia. Who cares? Are they incorrect? No.

You're very sly at what you're trying to do. You twist words and try to make it appear as if you've been the evidence producing beacon of logic here, and I'm just some general consumer yahoo spouting "generalizations" and "misconceptions".


What facts, exactly, do you speak of? All I saw were price differences with the claim. You keep stating these "Facts" with no proof other than your word. Consumer Reports is biased, JDP was skewed in favor of American cars being more unreliable because of problems that were reported by Japanese service shops, but not American (or whatever you were trying to get at there).

You mis-cited the information you did provide (The Camry was 3rd, in 2006, not 4th).

All the information you provided was for 2008+ Model vehicles.


So please, tell me where these Specific and Accurate facts are that you posted.



You aren't right just because you say that you're right and I'm wrong. You need some actual data there chief. And stop acting like this is an argument about vehicles made in the last several years, because it isn't, and it never was. You continuing to go back to citing facts about 2008/2009 vehicles goes to show that you have no true evidence to refute the fact that America made ****ty cars for about 2 decades. YES, that's a generalization, I'm aware there were some good cars made in that time... But the MAJORITY of them weren't. Stop twisting words, although I'm sure you'll take at this too.



And did you really reference the Geo Metro as a shining example of American quality?


(oh, and to answer your question about Socialist European nations, it's not limited to Europe. Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France...etc... Some of these nations are not currently under a 'socialist' party leadership, but the fact of the matter is that they are generally socialist. Are they 'kicking our ass" as I stated before? I don't know... But what I do know is that using China and USSR as the ONLY Socialist Examples is misleading and shameful.

This isn't the 50's, and Modern Socialism has a completely different face than the socialism that you seem to be so afraid of. Anyway, irrelevant, and I digress.


And once last thing: Your last paragraph completely proves my point about you not understanding this issue at its core. It isn't an issue of the last 4 years. I'm sure I'll have to point that out at least a dozen more times though.

I think you need to go back and re-read your initial post:

The fact remains that the "Big 3" have been making lower and lower quality vehicles for the last 15-20 years

so which last 15-20 years were you talking about? 70's & 80's? 80's & 90's? 90's through now? You pick, I don't want to be accused of twisting your words... but to most people reading that statement of "fact" it would mean 90's through now. Lower and lower quality is what you said, I pointed out accurately that Buick had tied for 1st on the latest JDP survey, refuting your "fact" that quality has been going down over the last 15-20 years.

you then claimed this(remember?):

So, here's what we have:

Japanese automakers who make reliable, fuel efficient cars at low prices. They're already way above Cafe, and don't give a **** about it.

European manufacturers, who make somewhat reliable, piss poor fuel economy luxury cars at high prices. They sell to a wealthier market, who will swallow the cost, so they also don't give a ****.

And American manufacturers, who make low economy cars, with mediocre reliability, at a middle of the road price. They are trying to compete price-wise with Japanese manufacturers, but are having to pass along this cost to consumers, thus making their lower efficiency, lower reliability vehicles more expensive than the market in which they are trying to compete

You brought pricing into this debate with these statements above, I used real data from Car & Driver to address the price and efficiency claims that you made. read the last sentence from the last paragraph you wrote, did you not claim they are more expensive in the marketplace? or am I twisting your words here, too....

moving on...

later as a rebuttal to one of my arguments you said this:

This is what i would classify as recent. When I said "in the past", I meant prior to 2002ish. Because Cafe was basically a joke in the 90s. Read the above statement, and imagine that American cars were at 27MPG average.

Hell, imagine American cars were at 20 MPG average.

It's laughable

What's laughable is that throughout this debate you spout off information with out a single shred of evidence to back up any of it, and then claim that I am doing the same... to this statement I gave you an example of a vehicle that helped GM meet CAFE standards for the years in question, the GEO Metro XFI, to this you responded with:

And did you really reference the Geo Metro as a shining example of American quality?

No, actually it was for it's EPA numbers, but if you had actually read any of what's been going on, you would have known this... and as proof that you can't or won't remember what it is you said:

Onto this socialist business. My only commentary on this (so as to avoid turning this into a political debate) is that you need to realize China and Soviet Russia aren't the only socialist/communist nations to have existed. A good proportion of advanced European Nations (who are kicking our ass, economically) are socialist... With all those terrible things you are afraid of, like universal health care, mandatory maternity leave...etc.

(oh, and to answer your question about Socialist European nations, it's not limited to Europe. Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France...etc... Some of these nations are not currently under a 'socialist' party leadership, but the fact of the matter is that they are generally socialist. Are they 'kicking our ass" as I stated before? I don't know... But what I do know is that using China and USSR as the ONLY Socialist Examples is misleading and shameful.

This isn't the 50's, and Modern Socialism has a completely different face than the socialism that you seem to be so afraid of. Anyway, irrelevant, and I digress

Find where I said that China and the USSR were the ONLY Socialist examples... I said:

when government gives billions of dollars to large businesses, they are assuming an ownership role in those businesses...gov't controlled business= socialism, see China and the former Soviet Union for examples of state run business

I don't see the word "ONLY" in that sentence, do you? who is "misleading and shameful"? in the future, you should stop shooting from the hip, it only embarrasses you...
Debate over, :banghead: It's counter productive at this point....

[CHARGERSHED]

It looks like Fiat will reduce their initial stake in CHRYCO to 20% with a graduated scale of increased ownership based on profit targets being met... maybe a 30% chance of survival. GM is slowly being forced into BK and then being split off into "good GM" and "bad GM" with "good GM" being formed into a new company and "bad GM" being liquidated, shareholders left with nothing and the UAW forced to negotiate all new deals with the new company ( White House Motors perhaps?)... stay tuned...

[sublime1365]

The whole thing is a political sideshow. Any "saving" of the US auto industry involves crushing the UAW. This administration does not want to be seen as harming one of their voting blocks. Hence you let them go bankrupt so you're off the hook. In other words, in 1 months time, GM's and Chry plans will still be "unacceptable".

Now THAT is a true statement... you are right on with that one... as truely sad as it is... it IS in some part, about votes... but at the same time creating a 'perception' that they (the govt) 'tried everything they could to help them'...

They will indeed be 'unacceptable' the next time they meet as well..

[Junior]

This thread has taken on a whole new meaning with the wordfilter in place today... :mrgreen:

[MGM]

Obama wants Chrysler to go away huh....I guess that 300C he apparently owned that was for sale on ebay a few months ago was a lemon?
Car was ok, he was the lemon :-)

[poptones]

The UAW is not the bad guy here. The UAW protects the workers, they don't design and sell the cars. They don't run the car companies. Crushing the UAW is not something to be taken lightly - salaries are already plummeting in this country, and "crushing the UAW" would mean sticking a pin in one of the last balloons left holding up the worker's cause.

[chargerondavins]

Car was ok, he was the lemon :-)

x2. I really like how he promised America to bring our troops home.. yet just sent 4000 troops to afganistan to "find the terrorists" ROFLMAO really? George Bush 2? Only this one lies, too? Bush was an idiot, but Obama is proving to be a LYING idiot (more of a liar than bush, somehow) (among other things that he lied about)

Back on topic the merger is ok I guess, I feel indifferent to it.

[IES99]

The UAW is not the bad guy here. The UAW protects the workers, they don't design and sell the cars. They don't run the car companies. Crushing the UAW is not something to be taken lightly - salaries are already plummeting in this country, and "crushing the UAW" would mean sticking a pin in one of the last balloons left holding up the worker's cause.

I'm neither for not against the UAW, but it is hard to believe that the extra costs that UAW labor has extracted hasn't affected the ability to design, build, and sell cars to meet the challenges of manufacturers with lower fixed labor costs.

[sublime1365]

Car was ok, he was the lemon :-)

OMG - I almost peed my pants reading that... TOO FUNNY - and true at the same time. LOL!

[PowerWagon896]

I'm neither for not against the UAW, but it is hard to believe that the extra costs that UAW labor has extracted hasn't affected the ability to design, build, and sell cars to meet the challenges of manufacturers with lower fixed labor costs.



Toyota's wage scale is within a few $$$$ of UAW wages. The big difference is in health care cost W/Toyota's employees paying for their health care VIA profit sharing.

Another big difference is that the CEO of Toyota makes $500,000 a year while Rick Wagoner & his replacment made $15,000,000 each in salaries & compensation.

Also, the Japanese corporate culture believes in accountability while a GM executive's sole reponsability is to avoid responsability. When a Japanese executive fails he appologizes for failing his subordanates while the US corporate culture blames the unions.

If you worked for them like I do, you would know 1st hand about the poor leadership example & horrendous lack of accountability that trickles down from the top & permiates the whole industry.

When a professional sports team has back to back loosing seasons, it is time to fire the coaches. All the talent in the world can not succeed W/O proper leadership.

[poptones]

Manufacturers with lower fixed labor costs? You mean like Hyundai? Kia? Surely you don't mean Toyota or Honda...

Japan heavily subsidizes its industries. I'm sure you realize what an apartment costs or a steak costs in Japan - how do the workers afford these things?

The UAW's function is to represent the workers and to extract as much as possible from the employer. The employer's job is to minimize those costs. One of these parties has been trying to do their job as best as possible... the other tried to do their job by closing up plants, moving as much as possible offshore without completely alienating their customer base (ie the people who used to be employed building the things) and using the US as a tax shelter.

I was an engineer making rounds to the auto plants in the 80s when many were in the process of shutting down. Flint was already a ghost town even before Truck and Bus shut down, I can imagine what it became after that. Yeah, there were bad apples in the auto plants - I've seen workers deliberately sabotage the line repeatedly to shut it down because they had learned how to damage it just enough it would take an hour or two to bring back up, which meant they wouldn't get sent home from their shift early but instead get paid for a two hour coffee break.

OK, now is that the fault of the UAW? The UAW did not hire those workers, it only represents them.

http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boo st_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_str uggle.aspx

Check out that article. If the UAW was not constantly fighting for more, how much would those workers in the other plants be earning? Paying off the workers is one of the few tools these employers have to keep out the union. Compare that to places where the union is held off through fear and intimidation - how was the customer service last time you visited wal-mart? Is the worker attitude, on a whole, really any better at wal-mart than at what most think of as a uaw staffed plant?

Bad attitudes are fostered in numerous ways, the UAW is not the bad guy here.

[MuscleMan305]

I'm neither for not against the UAW, but it is hard to believe that the extra costs that UAW labor has extracted hasn't affected the ability to design, build, and sell cars to meet the challenges of manufacturers with lower fixed labor costs.


hence the 4100lb challenger on a charger platform

[MuscleMan305]

Another big difference is that the CEO of Toyota makes $500,000 a year while Rick Wagoner & his replacment made $15,000,000 each in salaries & compensation.

Also, the Japanese corporate culture believes in accountability while a GM executive's sole reponsability is to avoid responsability. When a Japanese executive fails he appologizes for failing his subordanates while the US corporate culture blames the unions.

If you worked for them like I do, you would know 1st hand about the poor leadership example & horrendous lack of accountability that trickles down from the top & permiates the whole industry.

When a professional sports team has back to back loosing seasons, it is time to fire the coaches. All the talent in the world can not succeed W/O proper leadership.

Right on the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MagNite]

Just another example of Corporate greed. When a company's profits start falling, The CEO's and bigwigs will just kkep milking the company and lay off workers just to keep the company going for a bit more .... so they can milk some more $$$. Then when the company finally goes belly up, the CEO's and top management walk away with a big savings account and the workers are screwed. These multi-million incomes that some of these Managers are getting is downright ridiculous. No wonder this country is in a financial crisis....

[done]

Damn numbers can get in the way of a good arguement. GM lost just over $89,000,000,000 in the last 4 years. Lets say Rick Waggoner got about $60,000,000. Who got the the remaining 99.4% of the $89,000,000,000? (That is 89 Billion). That is loss, GM also had revenues much greater than that. So you have to add the revenue and the loss together. Who got all that that money?

[alpha]

Damn numbers can get in the way of a good arguement. GM lost just over $89,000,000,000 in the last 4 years. Lets say Rick Waggoner got about $60,000,000. Who got the the remaining 99.4% of the $89,000,000,000? (That is 89 Billion). That is loss, GM also had revenues much greater than that. So you have to add the revenue and the loss together. Who got all that that money?

I'm only guessing but maybe the Union Retirement fund?

[PowerWagon896]

Damn numbers can get in the way of a good arguement. GM lost just over $89,000,000,000 in the last 4 years. Lets say Rick Waggoner got about $60,000,000. Who got the the remaining 99.4% of the $89,000,000,000? (That is 89 Billion). That is loss, GM also had revenues much greater than that. So you have to add the revenue and the loss together. Who got all that that money?

Add his second in command (now his replacement) & it comes to 120,000,000.

Now, add to that the XX,000 or so salary personel, (1:3.9 salary to hourly ratio in the plants alone, not to mention corporate headquarters & other buerocracy) & it wouldn't surprise me if salary costs outstripped hourly.

The estimated labor costs, including perks, is about 10% of the cost of the vehicle. Where does the other 90% come from? Material? I think that too is a relatively small percentage compared to the "non value added costs". That's a fancy term for FAT overhead costs.

[poptones]

Because those losses are not losses like you and I would count them. If I tell you I lost $1000 last month you would probably ask me where or how - but there is no "where" to these numbers. It's not liquidity they lost, it's assets. When GM closes a plant it gets to write that off as a loss IN POTENTIAL earnings as well as tangible assets. Based on old sales records, what would that plant be worth if we could sell what it produced? All those fired workers are profit and loss write-offs and even though they are crying about how much workers cost they are still assets in the sense that without them there is no plant, and no production.

Sales are down 28% - that's a LOSS In the earnings statement loss of market share counts as "loss" - but there is no real loss, only a loss in perspective earnings. It's like when the publishing industry says they "lost" a BIllion dollars due to piracy - did they lose a Billion dollars? Did that come out of their pockets? Did a Billion dollars worth of CDs disappear from shelves?

No - a Billion dollars in "money we want but couldn't get" went to someone else, or didnt get spent at all. In the case of the car industry this means the jobs went to another car company, or were displaced because people decided they didn't really want another car payment so they kept the old one another year.

[done]

Because those losses are not losses like you and I would count them. If I tell you I lost $1000 last month you would probably ask me where or how - but there is no "where" to these numbers. It's not liquidity they lost, it's assets. When GM closes a plant it gets to write that off as a loss IN POTENTIAL earnings as well as tangible assets. Based on old sales records, what would that plant be worth if we could sell what it produced? All those fired workers are profit and loss write-offs and even though they are crying about how much workers cost they are still assets in the sense that without them there is no plant, and no production.

Sales are down 28% - that's a LOSS In the earnings statement loss of market share counts as "loss" - but there is no real loss, only a loss in perspective earnings. It's like when the publishing industry says they "lost" a BIllion dollars due to piracy - did they lose a Billion dollars? Did that come out of their pockets? Did a Billion dollars worth of CDs disappear from shelves?

No - a Billion dollars in "money we want but couldn't get" went to someone else, or didnt get spent at all. In the case of the car industry this means the jobs went to another car company, or were displaced because people decided they didn't really want another car payment so they kept the old one another year.

Clearly, you have never taken a basic accounting course nor do you understand the reporting requirements of public corporations. That you believe something, no matter how dearly you hold that belief, does not create truth.

Ponder this, if GM did not have a substantial real loss, why is everyone so concerned about their future. No one would be concerned about the future of a business that makes a profit, except perhaps those who begrudge those profits.

[MattRobertson]

x2. I really like how he promised America:blah:

Back on topic the merger is ok I guess, I feel indifferent to it.I've been arguing behind the scenes for some time that we should be allowing a distinction between political speech and speech about governmental issues. That is, politics - a forbidden subject - is about the business of forming government, and discussions pertaining to government officials - elected or appointed - who go about the business of governing are not subject to that restriction.

Posts like this make me think that my position has been wrong. We should be taking a hard line, shutting down all such related discussions, and infracting without mercy. Pisses me off that people who damn well know better can't control themselves.

/rant.

[poptones]

I didnt say they didn't lose money. I said they didn't "lose" 90 Billion dollars.

A year ago 15 Billion in assetts were sold off by GM to make it more liquid. That means GM was now a smaller company - so what? It means nothing to anyone except STOCK HOLDERS. Wall Street.

How many people have lost money buying new homes? It doesn't mean anything unless it's debt - if you "lost" 200 thousand on the value of your house it means nothing so long as you have the liquidity to keep living in it until it regains that value. This is what the car companies (and pretty much every company) has been struggling with lately.

[ICEChargerRT]

I've been arguing behind the scenes for some time that we should be allowing a distinction between political speech and speech about governmental issues. That is, politics - a forbidden subject - is about the business of forming government, and discussions pertaining to government officials - elected or appointed - who go about the business of governing are not subject to that restriction.

Posts like this make me think that my position has been wrong. We should be taking a hard line, shutting down all such related discussions, and infracting without mercy. Pisses me off that people who damn well know better can't control themselves.

/rant.

I have the feeling over the next few months there will be more and more heated discussions happening and not just on this forum nor on just this subject.

[ray_m]

With these new startup companies like Aptera and Tesla designing and cranking out cars on a shoestring budget, maybe it stands to reason that you no longer need a huge company to produce cars. Car factories today are assembly plants in the purest form. They spec parts that are made by hundreds of suppliers around the world and use just-in-time ordering so they don't have to house huge inventories. Relatively little is produced in-house. So it seems any good design team can take advantage of modern techniques and pull together a car or truck much easier than in the past, without all the bureaucracy and overhead. It might be interesting to have a bunch of smaller car makers again like they did way back when.

[poptones]

That's true and that was really the biggest point I was trying to make - the companies will be getting "smaller" but it really seems they all need to be. If a company like GM is so big that we as a nation cannot afford for it to fail, isn't that really little differnt than, say, spending all your investment capitol on AIG or Enron or whatever?

The thing is, even wiht the Tesla - it's not built in a vacuum. The Tesla depends upon the availability of high capacity, relatively cheap batteries. These are available because of the laptop industry - without that industry driving this economy of scale, the Tesla would be dramatically more expensive. Most of the smaller car companies build cars using parts from the BIG car companies - Morgan doesn't make motors, they make chassis to put the motors in.

We cannot (and should not, I think) rely on gi-normous corporations to employ us for 20 or 30 years then support us the rest of our lives. We need to be more responsible for ourselves, but that doesn't mean it can happen in a vaccum - otherwise we might as well all go back to living in caves and using rocks for tools. If our car companies die then we lose that business, because Holden and Fiat and Honda and Kia are all going to keep right on chugging.

Maybe that could become our next technology: instead of driving all these new parts to market, smaller, more responsive companies develop the technology to assimilate and evolve new products from existing inventories. Call it... Borg Motor Company?

[desquirrel]

Size doesn't matter. Stupidity does. The American model was always PRODUCTION. They were the most efficient mfg in the world at cranking out product until the rest of the world caught up. Over the years they "kept the lines moving" whether people were buying or not. This lead to dealers slashing prices to move product. Compound this with thousands of dealers and building the same exact car for multiple divisions. The public expects to buy your $20K car for $18K. Then you add to this paying left hand door mirror installers 85K a year in salary and benefits negotiated in good times to "keep the lines moving". When medical costs increase geometrically and the economy takes a downturn the hemorrhage starts. You can't produce more than you can sell and you can't pay a job 5X what it is worth. To repair these companies, all this has to change. Anything less is just buying time.

[done]

I didnt say they didn't lose money. I said they didn't "lose" 90 Billion dollars.

A year ago 15 Billion in assetts were sold off by GM to make it more liquid. That means GM was now a smaller company - so what? It means nothing to anyone except STOCK HOLDERS. Wall Street.

How many people have lost money buying new homes? It doesn't mean anything unless it's debt - if you "lost" 200 thousand on the value of your house it means nothing so long as you have the liquidity to keep living in it until it regains that value. This is what the car companies (and pretty much every company) has been struggling with lately.

Come on now. Their financial statements submitted to the SEC show that loss. You are confused about the difference between "paper" loss and profit and loss. Your house is worth less, that is a paper loss until you sell your house. A thief takes money out of your pocket, that is real loss cause you now can't buy groceries.

There is also a difference between "profit and loss" and cash flow and then revenue is also different, although they all pertain to measuring you business's success in sales.

The sale of an asset generates cash flow and may also generate either a profit or loss depending on the current book value or may just be the exchange of an asset for cash.

Let's try this example.

Jelly bean sales of $100, jelly beans cost you $120 to buy from your supplier, you lost $20.

A loss occurs when you spend more money for all costs of production, sales and overhead and obligations that is greater than the amount of money you recieve for your products. That is what GM has done for the last 4 years. They SPENT $89 billion more for stuff than they received for the stuff they sold. The $89 billion in cash came from using all the cash they had on hand, selling assets for cash and borrowing cash. So the company is smaller and owes a whole lot more money than 4 years ago and has no cash reserves and sales are down 50%. Thus, they are in trouble.

Does this help you?