If GM Files for Chapter 11...

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
[

I thought the increase of SUV/Truck sales because of the high increase of OBESE people in this country because they can't fit in these "econo death boxes"

Rear wheel drive cars disapeared. SUV's filled the gap and got luxurious. All the Japanese cars keep growing to accomodate fat people and also have huge horsepower numbers. I don't see the superiority any more

 

[firemachine69]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
[

I thought the increase of SUV/Truck sales because of the high increase of OBESE people in this country because they can't fit in these "econo death boxes"

Rear wheel drive cars disapeared. SUV's filled the gap and got luxurious. All the Japanese cars keep growing to accomodate fat people and also have huge horsepower numbers. I don't see the superiority any more



Considering my Yaris is one of the smallest cars available on the market, and I still find it decently sized, I'll have to agree with you on that one.

 

[FXjohn]

Yaris is about the only car Toyota makes i would buy

 

[firemachine69]

I'd tell you to avoid it like the plague.

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: firemachine69
I'd tell you to avoid it like the plague.

it's just a next generation Echo isn't it? what's wrong?

 

[firemachine69]

Lacks the bulletproof'ness the Echo had. If you search around on these forums, you'll find my Yaris hovers at just around the "average" level for reliability.

 

[FXjohn]

ouch. makes me wonder why people are dissing the big three then.

 

[ClarkB]

Originally Posted By: PT1
GM can compete if they get the right management team.


Everyone here should read Lee Iacocca's autobiography. A large part of his story is turning Chrysler around. Consider the quality of the pre-Iacocca cars (Aspen, Volare, etc.) with the Iacocca era cars (K-cars, minivans, etc.) Mr. Iacocca claims that Chrysler dumped untested vehicles on the market with their Aspens and Volares and time has shown him to be right.

Unfortunately for GM and Chrysler, I don't know if there is another Lee Iacocca out there. As stated previously, everyone except the secretaries at Chrysler took a pay cut when they received the gov't guaranteed loans. Mr. Iacocca himself was paid $1/yr. until they made a profit.

While some people still nay-say the government for backing the loans to Chrysler, it is interesting to note that Chrysler paid all of the loans back early and went on to produce some pretty decent cars all the while employing how many people?

It would be nice to see some corporate big-wigs with half as much backbone as Lee Iacocca.

Clark

 

[FXjohn]

chrysler got sucked dry during the cheap gas days and thrown away like regrettable double bagger after a night of too much tequila by daimler. Yay imports.

 

[fordboy]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
A GM UAW worker makes twice what I make. Why did I go to college?

Why would these people whine and cry if they closed some plants and got paid to sit on their a$$es.
I live so frugally, that a 20 year career as a GM UAW worker would probably set me up good for the rest of my life!

These people want their cake and they want to eat it to.


My grandfather worked for rhe GM UAW.

 

[Tornado Red]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red


Ford will come out like a shiny star. Without GM and Chrysler dumping their cars cheaply, other automakers will be able to make a profit... will be able to reinvest in plant and equipment, will be able to develop new models, etc.

As long as GM lives, and especially if GM and Chrysler still live, then everyone loses.


nonsense, the quality between Ford and GM or Chrysler isn't much different. I want them all to survive.


You may want them all to survive, but GM and Chrysler were doing poorly when the country was buying 16 or 17 million cars. Now sales are down to an annual rate of about 9 or 9.5 million, and probably won't exceed 12 million for several years. So there is not the demand for as many cars, or as many car makers. Only the strongest companies can survive, or the most nimble, or the ones with products that people will buy even in the worst of times.

The Detroit Three have all been going downhill for 30-40 years. GM was losing money, selling assets, long before the economic downturn. The federal government has been throwing good money away, trying to keep GM afloat. I don't know what they think they're doing with Chrysler, there is just not much there. The money would have been better spent helping out some parts companies, but that would probably have been a waste as well.

 

[FXjohn]

A WASTE COMPARED TO WHAT? THE BANKING BAILOUT?

make sure they get their million dollar bonuses.

 

[Tornado Red]

That was a mistake too. But like much of the problems with the domestic auto industry, the banking industry's problems originated in Washington.

Too many people point to Wall Street and the major banks as the bad guys. In fact they were the greatest victims -- the real culprits are in Congress.

Congress wanted cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars. They could have raised fuel taxes, but that would have risked the wrath of taxpayers. So instead they imposed mandates on auto companies -- CAFE standards, emissions standards, safety standards. The "experts" always claimed that each incremental change in the regulations would only add $100 or $200 or $500 to the cost of each car -- something so insignificant that auto buyers would never notice.

Yet the customers noticed. They noticed which cars cost more, which ones had the best features, which companies increased the content of their cars and which ones were cutting. They noticed which cars were the most reliable, and which ones sold cars with the same problems year after year.

Washington also created loopholes, like the SUV loophole that let Detroit make a profit on some vehicles even when they losing lots of money on the smaller cars that Washington forced them to make.

Most companies which have different product lines... they make more of the profitable stuff and they stop making the unprofitable stuff completely. But CAFE standards forced Detroit to make more and more of the unprofitable cars. And these are the cars that really did the most damage to the reputations of the Detroit Three.

I agree that nothing can undo the damage that Congress has done. It would be good if they stopped doing more damage, but that's not going to happen. Carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, letting California and other states set their own fuel mileage standard... these things will make everything much much worse.

 

[Westerly]

Originally Posted By: PT1
[
True ...but it is too late...the barn door is open and the horse is long gone. Signing NAFTA with Mexico was our downfall.


Remember how everyone snickered at old Ross Perot when he was saying that we'd all here that giant sucking sound when NAFTA became law.

 

[Tornado Red]

NAFTA was a great idea -- the cars and trucks being built in Mexico would be produced in Asia if not for NAFTA. Not in the US, maybe not even in Canada. They would not have US parts in them, only Asian parts.

 

[PT1]

Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
NAFTA was a great idea -- the cars and trucks being built in Mexico would be produced in Asia if not for NAFTA. Not in the US, maybe not even in Canada. They would not have US parts in them, only Asian parts.



Not true. NAFTA created the same effect as moving Asia to our continent. You forget the cost of shipping and the size of parts. A transmission made in Mexico can easily be loaded on a truck and driven anywhere in North America. The additional shipping costs and time to move chassis & powertrain assemblies from Asia changes the equation quite a bit. NAFTA made the workers in the US & Canada compete directly with workers in Mexico. Things would be very different if Mexico was excluded from NAFTA. Mexico being blended into the US & Canadian manufacturing mix has only diluted our standard of living. This is an undisputable fact.

 

[PT1]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn

nonsense, the quality between Ford and GM or Chrysler isn't much different.


Not anymore...Ford is way ahead of GM in initial quality and warranty reduction.

 

[PT1]

Originally Posted By: Westerly
Originally Posted By: PT1
[
True ...but it is too late...the barn door is open and the horse is long gone. Signing NAFTA with Mexico was our downfall.


Remember how everyone snickered at old Ross Perot when he was saying that we'd all here that giant sucking sound when NAFTA became law.


I sure do...and if you search on youtube you can see Al Gore & Ross Perot fighting it out on Larry King. Very interesting to watch. Gore was the NAFTA cheerleader and Perot was telling the future for sure.

 

[brianl703]

There's a tinfoil hat theory that Perot served as a spoiler in the election so that Clinton would win and Perot Data Systems would get the contract to manage Hillarycare.

What's interesting about that theory is that Perot Data Systems (the company he started after he left EDS) is heavily into the healthcare IT field.

 

[65cuda]

1 - Yes, GM rellied on SUV & Truck sales until the gas cisis hit. Why? Because that is what people WANTED! Why would they make vehicles that wouldn't sell? People didn't want little econo death boxes until gas hit $4. They wanted Silverados/Sierra's, Escalades, Tahoe's,and Suburban's.

2 - Keep in mind gas was around $1.50-$1.60, an the economy was strong wiith very little unemployment, when hurricane Katrina hit. That was the start of our economy's downfall and GM's. Gas jumped to around $2.80-$3.00 within days. That was August of 2005. Gas had a small pull back that winter but then it just started going up and up and up from there without any real sound fundementals supporting the heights to which it rose. It was mainly about greed and supply manipulation far more so than demand vs actual supply.
I'll disagree on #1. GM advertised the heck out of the SUV's and PU's not because it is what the public wanted, but because it is what the big 3 wanted to sell for the most profit. If it is what the public really wanted how come Toyota and Honda among others have been killing GM with their cars? People were wanting a good mid to even small car, but GM didn't advertise and with the reputation that they had in their previous efforts people didn't want to buy anyway.
As for #2 GM was losing shares long before Katrina, but even after Katrina did GM change their marketing to push more of their other car lines? No. They didn't even advertise their smaller PU's let alone the Malibu. GM was going to live and die on the gas guzzlers because of the profit margin. In this case they are now on life support and we the taxpayers are paying for the mismanagement of the company.