Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

What's wrong with this picture???

0 helpful
55 replies

by sleepin'dawg

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Hmmmmmm??? Let's see if I've got this right.
The President, congress and the senate, as well as the government of Canada vote to throw billions of dollars at the North American auto industry, to preserve jobs and thus bolster the economy???

Well that obviously doesn't work; because what do GM and Chrysler do???

[i][u][b]THEY'VE ANNOUNCED THAT THEY ARE SLASHING EMPLOYMENT LEVELS AND CLOSING AT LEAST 40% OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY!!! YEAH TEAM!!! WAY TO GO, GUYS!!![/i][/u][/b]

These clowns would throw an anchor to a drowning man. They need to review bankruptcy law, specifically Chapter 11. It's all about re-organization; not dissolution, although in the case of Chrysler, that might not be a bad idea.

[i][b]Dawg[/i][/b] ]:)

55 replies

by charliespencer

you're still waiting.

The next thing the government deems 'too big to fail' is the first thing it should order either into bankruptcy court or broken up into pieces small enough to fail without causing economic collapse. Dissolution by court order was good enough for Ma Bell, and gods know she was certainly too big to fail.

by tonythetiger

Take over one car company, then use taxpayer subsidy (you really didn't believe this was going to stop at a measly $20 billion, did you?) to run the rest out of business (or at least out of the country). Then they [b]control[/b] what you drive.

by jamesrl

GM has a choice, get smaller, or become non-existent. It can't be about saving everry job.

When GM had 50% of the market share, there was some sense in carrying all those brands. Now at 20% of the market, they can't afford to carry Saab, Hummer and Pontiac. Especially since Pontiac has so much in common with Chevrolet - so many models are just rebadge.

Saab and Hummer should be able to be sold. Saturn might be more difficult, not because they are not great cars, they are essentially Opels, but because they compete in the lower end, lower profit side of the market - against every other manufacturer.

GM is sized for producing far more vehicles than they can sell today. They will be taking a 9 week layoff - thats close to 20% of their working year.

Chapter 11 is giving someone the chance, to "protect" them from a forced dissolution - but it does have a time limit. If you don't show results by the end of the protection period, dissolution is usually the result.

Lord knows I want both GM and Chrysler to succeed for my own self interest. But I don't see any viable way to keep all those employees for a market that has contracted. If VW/Toyota/Honda stopped developing new vehicles for 5 years, and GM had lots of government loans to build the best possible cars, they still couldn't save all the brands and all the employees.

James

James

by charliespencer

I never understood the market for each of those brands. Maybe in the '50's and '60's the marketing department did a better job of telling the public what drivers each brand was targeted toward. By the time I reached car buying age my perception was Buick, Olds, and Caddy were for old people, and Chevy and Pontiac competed for everyone else. If Buick is competing for a different market segment than Caddy, I'd like someone to define those markets for me.

Hummer was never more than a sideshow, an attempt to capitalize on Ah-nold's well-publicized purchase of two real-to-Patton, AM General, military-grade HMMWVs. I'm surprised the brand lasted this long. It's a niche that should be sold to Land Rover, a company that already understands the market: people who want to drive an ostentatious display of their wealth, a vehicle with capabilities they'll never tax once they leave the dealer's obstacle course.

Saturn's problem is it's in the same market with Hyundia, Kia, and some of the low-end models from the Japanese name plates. Unfortunately, Saturn is saddled with GM's baggage of questionable quality, a perception left over from the '80's and early '90's. They initially tried their best to divorce themselves from the parent corporation, but it didn't work.

Saab? Did anyone in North America outside the auto industry even know GM owned Saab? Can you get a Saab in N.A.? Can I get it serviced in South Carolina, other than at the dealer? Heck, is there a dealer in S.C.?

GM will have four brands left (Chevy, Buick, Caddy, and GMC), and two of them compete with each other. Ford has the same problem with Mercury and Lincoln.

by jamesrl

You are absolutely correct. Ford has one luxury Brand (Mercury). So does Honda (Acura), Toyota (Lexus), Nissan (Infiniti). Audi isn't a VW brand per se, but there is much engining sharing, so close enough.

What do they know that GM doesn't? That some of your luxury customers traded up from your main line. GM thinks there is room for 2 (Olds was killed years ago).

The tragedy of Saturn is that they used to trade on a reputation and brand that was better than their plastic bodied cars. Then when all hope was lost, they became the way to import great Opel cars into North America, well built, and much better than the Chevy/Pontiac choices in the same size. But it was too late.

The original Hummer was a true military vehicle with a couple of nods to creature comforts. Then the H2 was more civilized. The H3 is really a chevy pickup with a Hummer-lite body. Whats the point in that?

Yes I knew about Saab. When it was an independent firm they were great to drive quirky cars, now they are just bland and dull like everything else. They offer a few unique options but never had enough for a full line. Hence they took a Subaru and made it the Saabaru (92X which was a Surbaru WRX) and the 97 SUV (chevy trailblazer). In Canada they were sold in SSI dealerships (Saturn Saab Isuzu).

While they are cutting, why not get rid of GMC - they have nothing that Chevy doesn't already have and the differences are really minor cosmetics.

Buick is "entry level luxury" versus Cadillac's full luxury, by industry standards.

And for the record, while my dad hasn't owned a non GM car or truck in 50 years, I've never owned one. But my business is dependent on GM and its competitors and so this announcement will mean layoffs and pain for my company. My brother was laid off from Toyota a few months back, but he may get more work in 6 months or so.

James

by av .

I've leased several Pontiac Grand Prixs over the years and they were so much fun to drive and never let me down. Its very sad that they've been discontinued.

I understand why GM has to make the cuts, but what happens to people like me that own a Pontiac in the end?

AV

by jamesrl

Is that since most of the parts are made by other companies, and those companies also supply auto parts wholesalers and retaillers, odds are you won't have any problems. If you have say a Pontiac Solstice or Saturn Sky, two low volume cars where both might dissapear in a few months, there may be problems getting odd parts, but engine stuff won't be a problem at all since that engine is in use in other vehicles.

If you have one of the main line, like the Grand Prix, it will not be an issue.

James

by boxfiddler

We've a 1990 Bonneville with 700,000+ miles on it. Was hoping to buy Pontiac with the next new purchase. :(

by cupcake

One of my favorite cars that I owned. 1994 1/2... was a beast and drove faster than I ever dared go! But what an attention getter, clean, gorgeous and never had a problem.

Other than it wasn't conducive to baby restraint systems :-)

by jamesrl

People are making do with their existing cars, and making them last longer. Independant garages, body shops etc are doing big business.

James

by gsg

Instead, give me the bailout money. I'll take $1,000,000. That will be more than enough to pay my house off, which is my only debt. Then, I'll put some of it in interest bearing accounts, some in the stock market, and retire and live off of the interest.

1) It'll contribute to the housing market as my house will be paid off.
2) Banks will be helped as I'll deposit money, and the bank will get my housepayment
3) I'll bolster the stock market as I'll be investing there.
4) A job will open up for someone else.

All of that is a 100% gaurantee, can't lose, situation. And while I'm at it, I just might buy a new car, thus supporting the auto industry. Also, that will be more ecologically sound as I drive to and from work at almost 100 miles per day. That could drop the green house gases and stave off the imminent destruction of the earth by at least a minute. That minute might be the one minute that some genius needs to come up with a solution.

So, hear that government guys? Give me the money and all of the problems are solved.

by jamesrl

So lets say you have a million dollars,and spend $100,000 to pay off your mortgage and other debts.

So you have $900,000.

At present, the best savings accounts pay about 1.5% interest. Can you live off 13,500 a year?

James

by gsg

OK, so I took liberties with my math. I was never good at math. And I owe much less than $100k, and am currently drawing 4% apy on some long-term CDs. I could supplement that with a no thought Part time job to subsidize my health insurance.

by ic-it

Copied from CNN;

How much $$ per taxpayer?

? CNN Money Summit: Stimulus dissected
Question: "If we just gave all the bailout money to taxpayers, how much would we each get? I've seen $25,000, $300,000, $1 million - what's the real answer?" -- Miranda Marquit, Logan, Utah

Answer: $9,513.76

To arrive at that figure, CNNMoney.com took the total of the bank bailout, $700 billion, and added that to the $787 billion estimated cost of the stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That totals $1.487 trillion.
We then divide that number by 156.3 million, which was the total number of U.S. filers in 2008.

So: $1.487 trillion divided by 156.3 million equals $9,513.76 per U.S. taxpayer.

by gsg

If I was given that much free and clear, I'd spend it. Again, to reduce the debt on my house.

by dadspad

a new car!! I will even out the money to $10K, there are cars being sold now for that or a little lower price. If you do not want a small, no frills car, then use the $10k down on another car. With dealers giving incentives, 0% interest, etc., this might do wonders for the economy.

Even if you were in a severe economic situation, then you could have dependable transportation under warranty.

Of course, that would mean many high paid executives in the banking industry might not be getting their million dollar bonuses.

by boxfiddler

Our politicians are either (optimistically and politely) dumber than dirt, or (realistically, yet still politely) in bed with the nations CEO's.
In contrast to my usual optimism, I go with realism in this...

by nicknielsen

The American government has to, in the immortal words of President Skroob: "Do something!" even if the best thing to do is nothing.

by tonythetiger

to "do nothing"... Problem is, if they do too much of that, we might figure out that we don't need them so much... so they have to create crises in order to "save" us.

by nicknielsen

The current salary of a US Congressman is $174,000. Given the current state of affairs, I would consider that salary well-spent if we could convince them to do nothing at all.

by boxfiddler

They just think they have to do something. And unfortunately, a lot of the American public agrees with that thinking.

by nicknielsen

We just have to remember that the American public are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know...

by charliespencer

"... why not get rid of GMC - they have nothing that Chevy doesn't already have ..."

Outstanding point. Either dump GMC or have Chevy stop making trucks. Does anybody buy into this "professional grade" nonsense?

by sleepin'dawg

They do produce a whole line of heavy duty haulers and dump truck style of vehicles which Chevrolet doesn't. The name of the company [b]IS[/b] General Motors Corporation, so I can understand the reluctance to drop that name. However, why does Chevrolet need to produce any trucks?? To compete with Ford?? Surely not Dodge or Chrysler??

[i][b]Dawg[/i][/b] ]:)

by jamesrl

Volvo trucks now have nothing to do with the car company. Toyota heavy trucks aren't called Toyotas and they aren't sold in Toyota dealerships.

There used to be Chevrolet heavy trucks.

Ford has always made hay of the fact they sell the most trucks of any brand. But for most of its history, if you combined Chevy and GMC truck sales, they would total more than Ford.

There are expenses with carrying two brands of trucks. The "industrial" heavy trucks are not sold in regular GMC outlets anyway. Spin them off as a special unit. And make all pickups Chevy, eliminate one level of brand management, marketing etc.

James

by jamesrl

The Bonneville was essentially an Impala with Pontiac styling and some specific options.

The new Pontiac G8, which is actually a Holden (owned by GM, builds in Australia) and is a very good car. Here is hoping they transplant it to a Chevy when they kill the Pontiac brand, that car deserves to survive. I don't much like the styling, but apprently its a great drive.

James

by boxfiddler

Let's hope they do keep that somehow. Dunno if it's 'just me', but seems to me they drive better.
Drove a 'Judge' years ago, and that handling is sweet.

by jamesrl

But at least since the 80s, their vehicles had the same track as their corporate sisters. As time went by any uniqueness went out the window - there used to be totally different engines in the same basic body, then it came down to a different cam or exhaust, then well they all became exactly the same - so whats the point.

Personally, I never liked the scoops and nose of 80s+ Pontiacs.

The G8 is an exception, as a Holden, there are no North American equivalents.

The engine is similar to others (Camaro and cadillac CTS) but the rest of the car is unique.

James

by notsochiguy

Only a little over 26.5 years to double your money at that rate. :_|

(Yeah, I know, kind of depressing when you think of it in those terms).

by charliespencer

All those trucks that will never see anything in the bed except a load of groceries. All those 4WD that will never set tire off the asphalt.

I don't blame Detroit's marketing, but the 'sport truck' is clearly an vehicle designed for idiots. If you're not going use the bed, if you're going to spend more time polishing it than hauling, why did you buy a truck?

by jamesrl

But perhaps for different reasons than you think.

Trucks have always sold well in the US (moreso than Canada).

But last year reflects a spike in the cost of gas. You'd think that would lower the sales of trucks. But when truck sales fell off, the manufacturers put huge rebates on them to move them. They are still selling, but they aren't the profit engine they were. In many cases today they are sold at a loss, to lower the inventory.

James

by jamesrl

....who are owned by? anyone?

GM and Cereberus (who own Chrysler).
I'd not rush to put my money in there, even though they are FDIC insured (to $250,000), it would still be a hassle.

James

by nicknielsen

4-door, 2.5L 4-cylinder, 5-speed.

Had one for seven years until I got stupid and put in the wrong radiator fan switch. Darn thing lasted 9 months afterward, then overheated in August and blew the head gasket.

Traded it on the current vehicle; one of the local dealers was giving a minimum $2,000 on trade-ins "push, pull, or drag it in." Jumped on that.

But I sure as hell wouldn't mind having another one. Handled well at road speed and all the torque in the world in that engine!

by tonythetiger

[i]why did you buy a truck[/i]

snow shovel, meat grinder, table saw, etc.

I don't NEED one ALL the time, but it's handy when I do. I pay for that convenience... nobody else does.

Whenever anyone tries to tell me what I don't "need", I seriously wish I could open fire. I despise control freaks!

by charliespencer

"Whenever anyone tries to tell me what I don't "need", I seriously wish I could open fire."

Whenever someone's response to a non-threatening conversation is to wish they could open fire, I seriously consider supporting a complete and total ban on firearms.

I didn't tell you want you did or didn't need, I asked why you needed it. There's a huge difference.

by jamesrl

By that point, they were virtually identical under the skin, built in the same plant, with different body panels and instrument clusters as the only difference.

When you sell them in the millions, having two different names/brands is ok. When the market dwindles down to almost nothing, having both brands wastes money - you still have to have ads for both.

James

by cupcake

I actually know that my trans am was assembled in Canada and pretty sure that most Camaros were coming out of US plants.

I know what you're getting at, but frankly, I wouldn't necessarily get rid of the Pontiacs models out of hand. For instance, I would kill the Camaro and keep the Trans Am/Firebird.

And I cannot imagine that advertising was the straw that broke the camel's back. Obviously there is other consideration - designing, testing, tooling, etc - but still, I loved the car. It would not have been the same had it been a Camaro.

by jamesrl

The fourth and last generations of Camaro and Firebird were built at St Terese Quebec. Same plant, not even separate lines. Same engines, different sheetmetal and dashes.

Its not just the advertising that is required for two cars its the whole product marketing effort - which includes pricing, forecasting, promotions, and other marketing functions. Multiply that by the number of lines and you see where the problem starts.

Take for example the GM Epsilon II platform:
Chevy Malibu, Saturn Aura, Saab 9-3, Opel Vectra, Pontiac G6, Buick Regal (in China). All of the marketing staff for all those brands....and it is the same platform with a couple of differnet engine choices.

James

by charliespencer

whether with posts or firearm, the desire to shoot someone over an online conversation still causes me to consider the merits of banning firearms.

by jamesrl

The Olds 442 was based on the same body. It did have some engines in common, some unique ones.

James

This discussion is closed to new replies.