Good or bad, as early as Wed., April 8th is the day.......

[Reatta Man]

Reports are coming in that GM will file for bankruptcy as early as tomorrow.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/04/07/456154.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aDr6LwcpFPB8&refer=canada

Moody's says it is a 70% chance:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10483228/1/gm-bankruptcy-chance-70-says-moodys.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEFI

Sad, sad day for millions of people, many of which don't even know it yet.

[BUICK RACER]

And it continues to be very scary for those of us employed and living in Michigan, but let's get it over with and move on with our lives, I have Buicks to play with!

[Dominic_Martinelli]

Just as a note. Remember that Studebaker declared bankruptcy in 1933 and emerged from recievership in 1935 and went on to produce cars for another 30 years. Just because GM may declare bankruptcy doesn't mean it's the end of the world, just a change in the world. That being said, what is a real shame is that GM got themselves into this predicament in the first place.

[joe_padavano]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dominic_Martinelli</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as a note. Remember that Studebaker declared bankruptcy in 1933 and emerged from recievership in 1935 and went on to produce cars for another 30 years. Just because GM may declare bankruptcy doesn't mean it's the end of the world, just a change in the world. That being said, what is a real shame is that GM got themselves into this predicament in the first place. </div></div>

More recently, United Airlines and Delta Airlines both filed for bankruptcy. They never stopped flying and both have now emerged from bankruptcy.

[Guest imported_Thriller]

On top of that, the second article states GM has $62B in debt. To me, this keeps coming down to how much the banks got with no chance of payback...and look at what AIG tried to do with some of the money...compared with debt restructuring of a global manufacturing giant.

Yes, mistakes were made, but can you imagine if GM's debt was simply paid down (not all of it) by the Obama administration? There would be political ramifications, but I'd think that would be money better spent than on banking.

If I recall correctly, the seventh level of Dante's Inferno is reserved for the likes of stock brokers, insurance people, and bankers, who don't profit by their own industry.

Now back to your regularly scheduled, less philosophical, Buick talk.

[Reatta Man]

I hope you guys are right. I have close family living on GM pensions.

As for the company, I've heard talk of two GMs, one with the good stuff (profitable) and another with the rest. I hope that means Buick is safe, since GM seems to have accidentally built it up as a prestige brand overseas, at least in China. Chevrolet is the volume brand, and Cadillac is more and more becoming a domestic prestige brand again.

So if that leaves Pontiac, Saab, Hummer, GMC, Saturn and maybe AC-Delco-Moraine in the other company, it would be interesting to see if they stay afloat.

At this point, I'm concerned about the residual value of the millions of used GM cars on the road. If their resale value tanks, all of the negative media hype could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We'll see.....

[jdome]

Bailing out GM would be a safer investment than the banks & AIG. At least GM has hard assets, inventory & machinery. What do the banks & AIG have? Paper & other peoples debt.

The problem with bankruptcy is that GM's suppliers will be paid off later, paid off at a discounted price, or not paid at all.

[bhclark]

CNBC reported today that they expected GM to become Chevy and Cadillac. I can't imagine them leaving Buick out since they are so strong in China. I would love to see Buick bring a QUALITY small affordable car to market again. The Lucerne is FANTASTIC, but just out of reach to someone like myself who can really only afford a $20,000 car.

Pontiac has a great legacy, but they just haven't done much lately. GMC is a joke, created only to sell trucks at other dealerships than Chevy.

Saturn's dead and Hummer and Saab are going, going gone.

Selling off divisions pays a paltry sum compared to their debtload though...so I don't see that as helping much.

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bhclark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GMC is a joke, created only to sell trucks at other dealerships than Chevy.</div></div>

Considering GMC evolved as a part of GM in 1909 from the Rapid Motor Vehicle Company, it pre-dates Chevy trucks as part of GM, making your statement false.

Any brand could be Chevrolet, selling the most, if they were given the wide range of product line from subcompacts through to full size to sports to trucks and SUVs and everything in between. Well, I doubt Cadillac would be able to sell a subcompact very successfully, but pretty much any of the others. Since Oldsmobile proved that killing a line won't help GM because peoples' loyalty was to Olds, not GM, I'm not sure about this move. If it does move to Chev and Cadillac, GM certainly wouldn't have much to offer me, certainly nothing to keep me from re-evaluating what I am after completely. In other words, today I have some brand loyalty to GM (via GMC and Buick)...tomorrow they may lose that and I'll start again from square one evaluating what vehicle meeds my needs and wants best.

[Reatta Man]

In terms of cost to GM, getting rid of GMC costs GM virtually nothing. It is not made in a seperate factory; every factory that makes Chebby trucks just slaps a GMC on one that comes down the line every once in a while.

So, GM's costs are in documentation, maintaining a seperate Web site and line of brochures, and maybe some seperate parts numbers.

Saturn has been recognized for pretty good quality, and several people have raised the issue of a quality small or hybrid car for GM, OTHER than the dead-on-arrival $40,000 Chevy Volt. (Advertising slogan: The Chevy Volt's Price Will Shock You!) So, drop the meaningless Saturn brand, and make upscale smaller cars for Buick and possibly Cadillac? Yeah, yeah, I remember the Cimarron, but this wouldn't be a rebadged Chevy any more than the Cadillac sells a rebadged Corvette.

And, as for Pontiac, I don't understand killing that. GM has all but forced Buick-GMC dealers to merge or buy out local Pontiac stores. And NOBODY would ever accuse Buick or GMC of selling ANYTHING the least bit sporty..... So, remember, if the past is any indicator, shortly after the new Camaro arrives, Pontiact dealers should expect an AMERICAN-MADE sporty car, possibly named Firebird, and not another rebadged Australian overpriced import.

So, if it is going to happen, go through bankruptcy NOW, and get it (and some of the ridiculous legacy costs) out of the way for the fall 2010 introductions and the winter car shows. If they do this right, by next summer, a GM reorganization will be little more than a memory.

And maybe, just maybe, Buick can bring us a new 2-door Riviera, possibly even with a convertible version.

Joe

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In terms of cost to GM, getting rid of GMC costs GM virtually nothing. It is not made in a seperate factory; every factory that makes Chebby trucks just slaps a GMC on one that comes down the line every once in a while.

So, GM's costs are in documentation, maintaining a seperate Web site and line of brochures, and maybe some seperate parts numbers. </div></div>

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but the manufacturing costs would be the same dropping Chevrolet as well. There is an argument to going back to GM having a truck division (make it all from SUV to light duty through to buses and heavy trucks). After that, the differential costs of having a Chevy truck vs. GMC truck site isn't of huge significance. If you have a spread of models with a range of options, you need to present them whether they have a bowtie, GMC, or tri-shield badge.

I don't pretend to have the answers, but if the rumour is true, just rename GM to Chevrolet and pull in the various models and be done with it. That's essentially the Toyota / Honda model that the legislators seem to love so much. Of course, they have considerable heritage as well, it is just that none of it is seen in the US before they started selling cars in abundance in North America in the late '60s / early 70s. In North America, the heritage of GM's development comes into play and is why we want to see our favourite brands continue, regardless of whether or not we are buying any of their new product.

As stated earlier, as a consumer, into extended warranty on my truck, and payments being done on the Rainier later this year, with a teenage daughter that we will need to consider (emphasis on consider...it is far from a done deal) having a vehicle available for, we will be looking to purchase at least one new vehicle within the next couple of years. If Buick and / or GMC are killed off, any brand loyalty I have is also killed off. Learn the lessons of Oldsmobile.

We generally don't have the inner financial details of GM. I have said it before though that giving Buick buyers only 2 cars and a CUV to choose from while Saturn has some 7 or 8 models ranging from a sporty convertible to a CUV doesn't necessarily take the consumers into mind (of course, that goes without mentioning that Saturn and Buick have the same CUV effectively).

Changing the subject slightly, I'm a bit ticked with what GM has done with the CUV. There were 3 - Enclave (which has had rave reviews), the GMC Acadia, and the Saturn. I saw the occasional advertising for the Enclave, but it was rare. Friends have an Acadia and are quite pleased with it. Then they go and introduce a Chev...my dealer carries essentially all lines, so you park and Enclave and the Chev beside each other and many consumers will simply buy the lower cost Chev. Of course, I am seeing all sorts of TV advertising for the Chev. Granted if the above scenario comes through with Saturn, GMC, and Buick on the bubble, it would have meant that GM would have none of these award winning vehicles to sell. So, were they planning all this months ago, long before the Obama administration was a reality? It makes it easy to become a conspiracy theorist....

[Reatta Man]

Derek,

I see your point about GMC and Chevy, but that only goes as far as the truck/van lines. For example, there are Chevy and GMC 1/2 ton pickups, but there isn't an interchangable model with the Chevy Impala, Malibu, etc.

Of course, it DOES make you wonder what a GMC Corvette would look like......

Go ahead, smile...THAT was funny!

Now, as for combining Chevy and GMC, I can't help but wonder if these brands have any particular brand loyalty? For example, would a died-in-the-wool Chevy owner buy a GMC if Chevy went away? Dunno.....

One thing it WOULD do is shut up those Ford people once and for all.....

Ford light truck sales, March 2009 80,341

GM light truck sales (Chevrolet and GMC) March 2009 86,457

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, it DOES make you wonder what a GMC Corvette would look like......

Go ahead, smile...THAT was funny! </div></div>

I wasn't thinking of eliminating Chev. I was thinking of eliminating the duplication - there are two ways of doing it - eliminating GMC, or eliminating the truck lines from Chev. The other car lines get by with little in the way of trucks (minivans, SUVs, and CUVs being potential exceptions).

I guess for me, the history is a piece of it. I'd rather not see GMC go down simply because of duplication. I think it makes sense to carve the trucks out and be their own division to let the car divisions concentrate on cars.

The other alternative is to create duplication...if there are only slight differences, why not make a Buick 3/4 ton 4x4...take a GMC, give it a bit of quiet tuning, and perhaps a Buick-only colour. It would be low volume, but perhaps a few would sell. I do know that the dealer we frequent was fine selling Envoys, but only one or two Rainiers. I got them to bring one in from another dealer for us. From the time we got it in until we left with it, Ruby garnered a lot of attention from both staff and customers. Hmm...maybe they would have sold more if they had one or two actually on the lot.

I'd better stop now...I can sense the bitterness creeping in.

[R W Burgess]

I don't consider a GMC 1/2 ton pickup as a duplication of a Chevy.

I bought a 2005 GMC because it had a prettier grill and front end than a Chevy.

Now, both vehicles have gone with those ugly fender brows and have gotten taller also, so I'm not buying anything right now.

As far as I'm concerned, no one builds a 1/2 ton pickup that I would buy or that I do not consider ugly, much as the car lines.

BTW, that stupid Ford truck commercial with the slide out steps to reach inside your truck?

Hey, my 1/2 is low to the ground, I can reach over from the ground and get what I need. I bought a pickup, not a Hummer!

Wayne

[bhclark]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thriller</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In terms of cost to GM, getting rid of GMC costs GM virtually nothing. It is not made in a seperate factory; every factory that makes Chebby trucks just slaps a GMC on one that comes down the line every once in a while.

So, GM's costs are in documentation, maintaining a seperate Web site and line of brochures, and maybe some seperate parts numbers. </div></div>

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but the manufacturing costs would be the same dropping Chevrolet as well. There is an argument to going back to GM having a truck division (make it all from SUV to light duty through to buses and heavy trucks). After that, the differential costs of having a Chevy truck vs. GMC truck site isn't of huge significance. If you have a spread of models with a range of options, you need to present them whether they have a bowtie, GMC, or tri-shield badge.

</div></div>

I agree Derek, that as far as costs go, it would be insignificant in terms of production to go either way. What I meant by saying that GMC was a joke (didn't mean to offend!) was that the way I understood it the main reason they were still around is because you couldn't get a Buick or Pontiac dealership to sell a Chevy truck. Hence, they sell GMC trucks instead. If you consolidate the brand, then it really doesn't matter. The duplication along brand lines certainly creates costs and consumer frustration, while maintaining consumer loyalty. I have never been brand loyal, but I bought a Pontiac Sunfire at one point because I liked the looks, knowing that I was paying more than a Cavalier, even though it was esentially the same car. (bought a Geo Storm too, which was rebadged as well, with an Isuzu engine).

So, IMHO, STYLING is what sells.....give Chevy more highly styled cars or Buick more affordable ones and, like you said, both would sell, but diluting the brand does more harm than help.

I have been shopping for trucks and was confused as hell looking at the Fords.....something like 80+ versions of the F-150 to choose from. I didn't even know which one to pick to match up to the Chevys and other models I was comparing.

It would be GREAT if the revived Muscle Car era were to continue. A vintage styled Riviera would be a fantastic boom. Better yet, give us a new GSX based on the '70 car and that should give the others some competition!

BTW, Stock is still at $1.75 despite statements by the company that a GM bankruptcy is "probable".

[Guest imported_Thriller]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bhclark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have been shopping for trucks and was confused as hell looking at the Fords.....something like 80+ versions of the F-150 to choose from. I didn't even know which one to pick to match up to the Chevys and other models I was comparing.</div></div>

So, the marketing folks have done their homework then...a confused customer may listen to our comparison so that we can tell them how the Ford has more features, or costs less for the same features, or both.

[poci1957]

I have felt there was some irony that people criticize GM for platform sharing and say car divisions should be eliminated, but no one suggests dumping GMC for the same reason. Of course the reason GMC exists is so a Buick/Pontiac dealer has a truck line to sell, and GMC as a division is profitable.

Some people over the years have assumed GMCs were more deluxe than comparable Chevys since they were slightly more money and slightly less common. Sort of like BOP used to be. I still think with sharp product the dealer lineup of Buick/Pontiac/GMC as a group could work well.

[Reatta Man]

As for the sharing of platforms, when GM does it, that is bad. When Toyota takes an Avalon and makes it into a Lexus, that is good......

As for the bankruptcy, I was talking to a GM dealer in NC this morning about a car he has that I want. I mentioned the forced bankruptcy of GM by the treasury department (you know, the one run by the guy who DIDN'T pay his taxes) and when he said he had not heard that, I could almost hear the desperation in his voice.

You can just add a bigger rebate to a new GM car, and someone will buy it. But you can't add a rebate to a used GM car to make up for its loss in value. And, of course, the poor owner is stuck with the lowered value.....

On with the show.....