Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Maflynn · May 2, 2009, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Quick ?

They had it looooong coming.

-t

I disagree, while they certainly had issues and relied too heavily on trucks and SUVs GM and Chrysler were pretty sound a few years back. It was only the past few years did they start recording losses

turtle777 · May 2, 2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

... GM and Chrysler were pretty sound a few years back. It was only the past few years did they start recording losses

They were sound ?

As sound as our economy in the last 5 years, maybe.

It (our economy) was a giant bubble, a pyramid scheme, just phony, consumption financed by debt.

Yes, in that environment, where everyone took out second and third mortgages and bought a nice, big, fuel-sucking truck, GM was doing ok.

Well, guess what, that business never really worked, it was never profitable, GM was never in good shape. It was just hidden behind all the phony economy we had.

-t

OreoCookie · May 2, 2009, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

What is surprising is at how quick both GM and Chrysler went down, I mean just a few years ago no one would have believed that chrysler would be in bankruptcy and GM following suit.

Actually the writing has been on the wall for quite some time now.
When Daimler Benz bought Chrysler, even then Chrysler was in trouble. Dailmer thought they could turn it around and have access to the American market. Turns out it didn't work and they got rid of Chrysler just in time.

The situation of GM and Ford was not any better. Their stock has been junk bonds since 2005 and even before that, it was pretty obvious they were heading downhill. There was nothing really surprising about this development.

ebuddy · May 3, 2009, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I'll buy Jeeps regardless of who makes them, as long as someone does.

Does that answer the question?

Eug · May 3, 2009, 10:58 PM

Chrysler in Hand, Fiat Turns to Opel

Fiat's board of directors met Sunday and authorized Mr. Marchionne to seek a potential merger between Fiat and GM's European operations, including Opel and its U.K. unit Vauxhall, according to a statement issued by Fiat on Sunday. If a deal is reached, Fiat will consider creating a new publicly traded company that combines the auto maker's car unit, Fiat Group Automobiles, with GM's European operations, the statement said. The three-way alliance is expected to generate €80 billion ($105.84 billion) in revenue a year.

Hmmm.... Fiat is going after these companies very aggressively. One wonders if in 3 years all this wheeling and dealing will be seen as a major acquisition coup, or if they're biting off more than can chew.

ctt1wbw · May 4, 2009, 08:15 AM

Fiat already owns several brands which are doing fine. I don't think they are taking in more than they can handle.

Arty50 · May 6, 2009, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

Apparently someone hasn't grasped the apparent disconnect in quality between American cars and American trucks.

Also, efficiency.

Exactly. The Rams are really nice trucks. I like the 300 too. But I rented a Charger recently and it was an absolute POS. Everything in it felt absolutely cheap.

smacintush · May 6, 2009, 11:38 PM

Fan-f*cking-tastic.

ctt1wbw · May 7, 2009, 08:43 AM

Wow. And where is the Congress going to get the $4500 per clunker to get it off the road?

ctt1wbw · May 7, 2009, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Arty50

Exactly. The Rams are really nice trucks. I like the 300 too. But I rented a Charger recently and it was an absolute POS. Everything in it felt absolutely cheap.

I love my Ram 1500. And the Charger you RENTED might have been a pos. You had a rental. I abuse the **** out of rentals.

residentEvil · May 7, 2009, 08:54 AM

and a lot of fleet/rentals are that way on purpose. it isn't the exact same car you get at the showroom.

Eug · May 7, 2009, 09:57 AM

$4500. Wowsers. So, someone who just happens to be lucky to fit in their category gets thousands of bux handed to them.

I used to say that Canada's political right was similar to the US's centre. No longer. It seems the US's left is now becoming further left than Canada's left.

Laminar · May 7, 2009, 10:16 AM

$4500 is only for some trading in a year 2002 or newer vehicle that's rated at 18mpg or less for a brand new fuel-efficient car. For older cars, the price goes down. $4500 for a car that age isn't necessarily that good - my car is three years older and worth at least that.

Laminar · May 7, 2009, 10:16 AM

Also, Ford's doing pretty well, apparently.

Eug · May 7, 2009, 02:54 PM

Canadian governments tell Canadian Auto Workers Union to slash wage contracts again at GM, or else GM Canada will be liquidated.

Good.

Hawkeye_a · May 10, 2009, 10:29 PM

I hate to be the guy to bring up the 'g' word... but do you guys reckon this is the free market/globalization at work here ? hear me out....

Labour costs in the U.S.(minimum wages) are probably much higher than in asia, right ? thus rendering manufacturing incapable of competing on the scale that the Japanese and Koreans are.

Even Mercedes and Audi (among others) are assembling cars in India to cater to that/those markets, probably because of the much lower labour costs.

The European cars like Merc, BMW, Ferrari, Aston Martin, etc...... (as opposed to Peugeot, Citroen, etc) can afford to charge a premium as they are "premium" brands. The American automakers cannot seem to do that globally for a variety of reasons...... marketing/services/logistical ?

turtle777 · May 11, 2009, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Fan-f*cking-tastic.

I hate to see how Obummer and the f****ing Democracks waste taxpayer's money.

WTF ?

-t

OreoCookie · May 11, 2009, 01:39 AM

The manufacturers build factories in China and India not because they want to, but because they have to. China in particular has a tendency to require foreign companies to invest in China in order to be able to sell their products. Airbus, for instance, has built a factory for the A320. In return, China bought quite a few Airbus aircraft.

Regarding premium brands, with the exception of Cadillac, I don't remember that any American brand* is perceived as premium abroad. And even Cadillac has this reputation only for its older models. I also don't remember aggressive marketing in Europe.

* Opel is a GM brand, but it does develop its own cars that have nothing to do with the American market. Despite its American mother, it's perceived as a German brand. Ditto for Ford which also has a non-American car line-up. Both brands are considered VW-like consumer brands.

Laminar · May 11, 2009, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

I hate to see how Obummer and the f****ing Democracks waste taxpayer's money.

WTF ?

-t

You've become a parody of yourself.

ctt1wbw · May 11, 2009, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The manufacturers build factories in China and India not because they want to, but because they have to. China in particular has a tendency to require foreign companies to invest in China in order to be able to sell their products. Airbus, for instance, has built a factory for the A320. In return, China bought quite a few Airbus aircraft.

Regarding premium brands, with the exception of Cadillac, I don't remember that any American brand* is perceived as premium abroad. And even Cadillac has this reputation only for its older models. I also don't remember aggressive marketing in Europe.

* Opel is a GM brand, but it does develop its own cars that have nothing to do with the American market. Despite its American mother, it's perceived as a German brand. Ditto for Ford which also has a non-American car line-up. Both brands are considered VW-like consumer brands.

I've seen numerous episodes of 60 Minutes and the like that Chevy and Buick are top sellers in Asia. Big time.

ort888 · May 11, 2009, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

I hate to see how Obummer and the f****ing Democracks waste taxpayer's money.

WTF ?

-t

It was much more interesting watching how Bush and the Republican's wasted it.

Anyway, 2004 or newer? Is that right? How can that be right? What car from 2004 is worth less then $4,500? Practically nothing would be, rendering this entire program completely pointless.

This seems to me like a better solution then giving the money right to the automakers. Give it to the people and let it trickle up. I just wonder what they would do with the cars?

Laminar · May 11, 2009, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

Anyway, 2004 or newer? Is that right? How can that be right? What car from 2004 is worth less then $4,500? Practically nothing would be, rendering this entire program completely pointless.

My first thought as well. I'm not sure whether their 18mpg ceiling is city mpg or highway mpg. It's really tough to find a vehicle that gets less than 18mpg on the highway and is worth less than $4,500. The V6 Rangers and S10s could qualify, as could some other pickups, but it's not particularly easy to find one for that low of a price, even with 150,000+ miles.

OreoCookie · May 13, 2009, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw

I've seen numerous episodes of 60 Minutes and the like that Chevy and Buick are top sellers in Asia. Big time.

I was more referring to Europe. Haven't seen many American cars in Japan either (of course, I wasn't close to a US base). Those are steady markets that provide a regular income -- and US car companies don't really have a piece of it.

China is the big emerging market when it comes to cars, only makes sense that they sell quite a few of them.

ctt1wbw · May 13, 2009, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I was more referring to Europe. Haven't seen many American cars in Japan either (of course, I wasn't close to a US base). Those are steady markets that provide a regular income -- and US car companies don't really have a piece of it.

China is the big emerging market when it comes to cars, only makes sense that they sell quite a few of them.

Yeah, I think the country the show was talking about was China. They love Chevy and Buick. As far as Japan goes, Harley can't keep them on the lots.

spacefreak · May 14, 2009, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by ort888

It was much more interesting watching how Bush and the Republican's wasted it.

Going to war generally costs money. So does securing the homeland. Had we not neglected security spending over the prior 8 years, the investment needed to bring us up to speed would likely have been much less.

ort888 · May 14, 2009, 12:57 PM

So don't go to war.

sek929 · May 14, 2009, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Going to war generally costs money. So does securing the homeland. Had we not neglected security spending over the prior 8 years, the investment needed to bring us up to speed would likely have been much less.

Ha, that's rich. Homeland Security is one of the biggest boondoggles ever imagined. Now my town of ~3K people has all new police cars (because the perfect condition ones we had weren't 'secure' enough), a Ford F450 w/trailer holding two brand-new Honda ATVs, all thanks to HS funding. HS isn't about securing the homeland, what total BS. HS security is about wasting billions so local departments can get a bunch of new useless sh!t to play with. I always thought conservatives were against giant wastes of taxpayer money but it seems as long as they came up with the wasteful idea there can be no wrong.

Originally Posted by ort888

So don't go to war.

Then the motherland would be invaded by Islamic Fascists and without new radar detectors and ATVs we would be powerless to stop them.

Proudest Monkey · May 14, 2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

Then the motherland would be invaded by Islamic Fascists and without new radar detectors and ATVs we would be powerless to stop them.

At least they'll take care of the bear problem.

olePigeon · May 14, 2009, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

HS security is about wasting billions so local departments can get a bunch of new useless sh!t to play with. I always thought conservatives were against giant wastes of taxpayer money but it seems as long as they came up with the wasteful idea there can be no wrong.

Don't forget about the Department of Education and No Child Left Behind. All it did was give more money to the schools that already have it, and choked off funds for the schools that needed it.

OreoCookie · May 15, 2009, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw

Yeah, I think the country the show was talking about was China. They love Chevy and Buick. As far as Japan goes, Harley can't keep them on the lots.

Harley Davidson is also dying: their loyal customer base gets old, they've got a messy brand strategy (none of the `real' bikers know that Harley owns Augusta, for instance, so Augusta bikes aren't even sold with Harleys) and their stock has plummeted by 60 % since last September.

ctt1wbw · May 15, 2009, 06:08 AM

Just found out that the Dodge dealer where my family has bought about 7 Dodges is being closed down. Doesn't matter because I don't live there anymore but still, kinda sucks.

Now I'm hearing about 2600 GM dealerships closing? What is the latest on that?

Eug · 10:24 AM

Yeah, both Chrysler and GM are closing a bazillion dealerships.

Call me thick, but how does it help the situation? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just wondering. Do GM and Chrysler both incur a significant operating cost with every open dealership? Is this about slimming down the distribution chain?

It can't be about reducing competition, because even with few GM and Chrysler dealerships around there are still going to be a lot of Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. dealerships around.

P.S. How does inventory work with these dealerships? Are most of the new cars on dealers' lots property of GM or property of the dealerships? I had thought it was the latter.

EDIT:

From CNN:

The expectation is that the surviving dealerships will become larger and more profitable as a result of the thinning out, which in turn will allow them to spend more on advertising and facilities. But GM also acknowledges that its long-term decline in U.S. market share will continue as a result of the smaller network of dealers.

ctt1wbw · May 15, 2009, 10:51 AM

The manufacturers pay the dealers certain costs, like electricity bills and stuff like that, which is tacked on to the price of the car. I don't think alot of buyers are aware of this, so some costs like that which won't have to be paid out as much will save the car makers some cash, but not much I would expect.

ctt1wbw · May 15, 2009, 10:51 AM

I was just about to ask about the millions of jobs that Obama was supposed to create. Where are they?

Eug · May 16, 2009, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw

I was just about to ask about the millions of jobs that Obama was supposed to create. Where are they?

Non sequitur?

Chongo · May 20, 2009, 01:23 AM

Looks like GM will really stand for Government Motors now.
CORRECTED - UPDATE 1-GM bankruptcy plan eyes quick sale to gov't | Deals | Mergers & Acquisitions | Reuters

NEW YORK, May 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Corp's (GM.N) plan for a bankruptcy filing involves a quick sale of the company's healthy assets to a new company initially owned by the U.S. government, a source familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

The source, who would not be named because he was not cleared to speak with the media, did not specify a purchase price. The new company is expected to honor the claims of secured lenders, possibly in full, according to the source.

PB2K · May 23, 2009, 06:29 PM

GM received another 7.000.000.000 this month and says they need 25.000.000.000,00 US$ to survive.
bzzzt. hello ? please try to make a profit !

I read an article that explained how the American car business got into this situation. It told about the strict environmental rules that SUV's and picup trucks didn't need to apply to, so the manufacturers continued to produce lower tech polluting cars to evade higher prices. Cars they can't sell to anyone anymore nowadays. The story made sense to me.

MacTheRiverRat · May 23, 2009, 08:37 PM

That may be one of the reasons why American car dealers got their rear ends in a bind. Also could be that when gas was still cheap like $1.18 to $1.30 a gallon that no one gave a rats a$$ about how much gas mileage they were getting and the American car dealers were slow to catch on that Americans were switching to better gas mileage vehicles.

We still own 2 vehicles Chrysler town & country short wheel base vans with no problems. Got them in oct of 07 on a lot clearance sale. Saved about $5000 per vehicle because dealer was wanting to get rid of 07 models as the 08 models were filling up his dealership.

BTW- 2003 Ford-150 XLT still running great @ 60,000 miles.

ctt1wbw · May 24, 2009, 06:27 AM

I'm not sure it has anything to do with switching to more fuel effecient cars. Those cars aren't selling all that well, either. The phycology of the bad recession has people keeping their money in their wallets, which doesn't help bringing the country out of recession. Plus with the banks getting hammered from bad loans, they won't lend to anyone with less than a 700 credit score, for example.