GM

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

For as much he is not a car guy I think Mullally (pardon the spelling) is on the right track with FORD. Funny it always seems to be an outsider that comes in to fix the family mess only for the family to overthrow him later. Possibly GM can pick him up after he is done at FORD.

[keiser31]

Where is Uncle Lee Iacocca when you need him?

[R W Burgess]

*

*

*

* Uncle Lee Speaks!

[Reatta Man]

Lee Iaccoca in Newsweek

And here:

QUOTE

In the midst of his retirement, Iacocca took time to reflect on the demise of the company he once led and rescued and issued the following statement:

"This is a sad day for me. It pains me to see my old company, which has meant so much to America, on the ropes. But Chrysler has been in trouble before, and we got through it, and I believe they can do it again. If they're smart, they'll bring together a consortium of workers, plant managers and dealers to come up with real solutions. These are the folks on the front lines, and they're the key to survival. Let's face it, if your car breaks down, you're not going to take it to the White House to get fixed. But, if your company breaks down, you've got to go to the experts on the ground, not the bureaucrats. Every day I talk to dealers and managers, who are passionate and full of ideas. No one wants Chrysler to survive more than they do. So I'd say to the Obama administration, don't leave them out. Put their passion and ideas to work."

END QUOTE

[poci1957]

Great quote ReattaMan, see my post to your attention in the American Auto Bankruptcies thread.

[ex98thdrill]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Joe and I are nothing more than a pebble of sand in this whole thing.</div></div>That's true Steve, but I have a lot of respect for both you and Joe, and right or wrong I don't agree with people attacking the company that provided for your family. One or two idiots doesn't make the entire company corrupt. Through your contacts with GM we have had some good displays at the AACA Museum, some interesting GM displays at Hershey, and the last two cars raffled off (to benefit AACA) were GM products.

I haven't seen AACA get the support from Ford and Chrysler to the level that GM has given us. Yet we have members on the forum who have forgotten GM's support towards AACA and have taken to bashing them. This is a classic example of <span style="font-style: italic">kicking someone while they're down</span>.

Before anyone accuses me of being <span style="font-style: italic">'pro GM'</span> we have over 20 vehicles, and the only GM product we have is the vehicle that hauls the vehicles to the meets.

Perhaps this thread should go to Rants and Raves.

[Guest windjamer]

Nice to know your useing a dependable GM to haul the rest Pat.

[MCHinson]

I use a Chevrolet Tahoe to tow my Model A Ford. I also just got a new 2009 Chevrolet Impala police car assigned to me. I have only driven it a few hundred miles so far but I think I am going to enjoy it.

[Guest BJM]

Sometimes it's tough to fault the unions for the concessions they received. Like star athletes, we don't like it when they get a $40,000,000 signing bonus but if that's what the owners want to pay so be it. Costs are passed on to the fans, er, buyers of automobiles.

At some point in the last 60 years, since World War II the car companies should have broke the UAW. Because there was prosperity for all, nothing happened.

It's interesting to note that the UAW said today they would sell their 55% stake in Chrysler to pay for the retirement fund expenses. The UAW doesn't even want to run Chrysler, yet they have no problem criticizing car company management when it suits them.

When is the last time you heard of a strike at Mercedes Benz or Honda? Never. In fact, in both of those manufacturing cultures workers are encouraged to get bachelors level degrees and are considered skilled craftsmen, loyal to the brand.

OK, where are the investors going to come from? Because - an investor sees the status quo. After the Bankruptcy is discharged (over) then those expensive contracts are still in place.

Since the 2010 Ram was released Chrysler doesn't have anything in the pipeline. No world fighting replacement for the (yawn) Sebring and no green light for a 300C replacement.

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MCHinson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use a Chevrolet Tahoe to tow my Model A Ford. I also just got a new 2009 Chevrolet Impala police car assigned to me. I have only driven it a few hundred miles so far but I think I am going to enjoy it. </div></div>

Until the trans dies at about 30-50K. Not a proper police cruiser. The Ford P71 is vastly superior. Sadly, a car GM built over 10 years ago, the 9C1 Caprice would be superior to that Impala if they just continued rolling them off the line to this day WITH NO IMPROVEMENTS SINCE 1996.

Just another example of why GM is in the bind their in today. ITS THE POOR MANAGEMENT DECISIONS, BUT I KNOW ITS A LOT EASIER TO BLAME THE UNIONS.

[MCHinson]

I agree that my last Caprice Police Car was a great car. I probably should have indicated that they moved me and the other Lieutenants into the Impalas. Our front line patrol officers are still in the Ford Police Interceptors or in Dodge Chargers. My car will last in the use it gets, because it is not really going to get much emergency response driving.

The Impala is a great car. It will be fine for the use it is going to get and would be a great car for a family to drive.

[LINC400]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, with CAFE, everything shrunk until there was no difference between the size, price, and look of a late 1980's to present Buick and Toyota.</div></div>

And size is the only measure of difference? (In price and "look" Toyota is much more of a Chevy competitor than a Buick.) <span style="font-weight: bold">I seriously doubt that 10 mpg land yachts are the future of any car company.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People that bought those 1975 Buicks had to drastically reduce the size, passenger room, cargo space, and power of their cars as time went by, or switch to an SUV. If there was no demand for those vehicles, they would not sell.</div></div>

They're not. It isn't 2004 any more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So then what is your point about the foreign cars constantly updating?</div></div>

Making a new grille every few years and making a better/more efficient drivetrain whenever possible are different things. Which happened to the Cavalier? Which happened to the Corolla? Which one is providing the incentive to buyers?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally I think that American cars not updating often enough is a problem, however, GM has a lot more models to get around to updating than Toyota does.</div></div>

Which had a MUCH larger development and engineering staff than Toyota during the intervening period. GM is still the bigger company, BTW.

In the 2009 <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span> Auto issue Toyota Motors has 27 models listed (cars & trucks), with 3 Lexus models being uprated clones of Toyota models. All of GM has 37 models listed, virtually every one of which is a clone in several "brands" (counted individually regardless in the total of 37). So which one do you think was really trying during the past few decades?

=======================

The proof is in the pudding. Some companies were poorly managed, and are paying for it now. </div></div>

It is just ridiculous to state that GM would still be making 1976 Fleetwood 75's with 500 cid engines without government intervention. They downsized in 1977 without any input from the government. However, Americans generally like large vehicles. They might trade in their large car or SUV for a Prius when gas is over $4 a gallon. However, as soon as gas is back to $2 a gallon, they discover they don't like their small car, and large car and truck sales go back up again. It has happened countless times since the 1970's. When the 90's Buick Roadmaster came out, Buick dealers could not believe the amount of 70's and early 80's Buick and Olds that came in on trade. People held on to those cars because they liked them, and wanted a worthy replacement. Not a bland mid-size Japanese clone. As far as change, yes I would like to see vehicles updated. However, there are people that do not like change. The 1980-92 rwd Cadillac stayed in production so long because some did not like the new fwd dinky Cadillac. So if the Cavalier sold well with only minor updates, what is the problem? I would rather see the current Town Car stay the same for the next 10 years rather than see it replaced with a mid-size v-6 boring Lexus clone. In fact the main complaint that Lincoln lovers have with the current Town Car is not that it hasn't been changed, it is because it does not look like a Lincoln. It looks almost the same as the Marquis.

I think the biggest mistake the Big 3 have made is making Nissan and Lexus clones, and dropping all the familiar, well-liked names and replacing them with letters and numbers. They just disregarded all their loyal buyers by doing this in the hopes of getting foreign car lovers to buy cars. This will never happen.

Also, Toyota and all other foreign manufacturers did not offer larger cars, trucks, and SUV's in the 1970's. Yet now they all do. Why? Because they wanted a part of that lucrative market. Yet now everyone forgets that foreign companies make these and not just Priuses and hybrids.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is just ridiculous to state that GM would still be making 1976 Fleetwood 75's with 500 cid engines without government intervention. They downsized in 1977 without any input from the government.</div></div>

C.A.F.E. standards were first enacted in 1975.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if the Cavalier sold well with only minor updates, what is the problem? </div></div>

The same problem Cadillac had with Lexus/BMW/Mercedes/etc. before GM "cloned" them. <span style="text-decoration: underline">The competition</span> (specifically Civic/Corolla/Sentra/etc.) were being thoroughly redesigned and updated every 3-6 years <span style="text-decoration: underline">despite</span> the fact that they also were selling well, selling better in fact by the 1990s in both Cavalier's and Cadillac's cases. You put together a couple-3 decades of doing business like that as compared to your competitors,... what else could you expect?

[LINC400]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is just ridiculous to state that GM would still be making 1976 Fleetwood 75's with 500 cid engines without government intervention. They downsized in 1977 without any input from the government.</div></div>

C.A.F.E. standards were first enacted in 1975.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if the Cavalier sold well with only minor updates, what is the problem? </div></div>

The same problem Cadillac had with Lexus/BMW/Mercedes/etc. before GM "cloned" them. <span style="text-decoration: underline">The competition</span> (specifically Civic/Corolla/Sentra/etc.) were being thoroughly redesigned and updated every 3-6 years <span style="text-decoration: underline">despite</span> the fact that they also were selling well, selling better in fact by the 1990s in both Cavalier's and Cadillac's cases. You put together a couple-3 decades of doing business like that as compared to your competitors,... what else could you expect?

</div></div>

And GM had a whole new line up of cars less than 2 years later because it takes absolutely no time to do this. But Ford and Chrysler were exempt until 1979.

Yes of course. Toyota is king of the world and can do no wrong. And of course from the 1940's through the 1970's, none of the Big 3 ever changed their cars.

The problem with GM was when they offered all nearly identical boxes in the 1980's from Pontiac 6000 to Cadillac DeVille, trying to meet CAFE requirements and make cars like the imports. When they were allowed to build what they wanted, and had their own style instead of trying to clone imports, they did not have problems, and people switching to imports.

[LINC400]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My math tells me you were 4 in 1962, the last of the good years in America. 1963 was the beginning of the downfall, with the assasination of our president and the invasion of the British music. The world now knew we were vulnerable in every way.

</div></div>

Lets see if this one doesn't get pulled...

1962, when median annual household income in the U.S. was over $15,000 less than it is now (adjusted for inflation).

This is a downfall? </div></div>

I believe in 1962 most households were a one income household where the wife did not work. So $15,000 additional for 2 incomes doesn't seem like a big improvement.

Also I was not around in 1962, but can see the difference between now and then. I collect antiques from the 1930's-1950's. My furniture is all solid wood, made in America. How much wood is in today's furniture? Not much, it is mostly particle board and wood-look paper. How is that an improvement?

Women used to shop for groceries in high heels and day dresses. Now they trudge through Walmart in sweats and flip flops.

My 1976 Lincoln came in 29 colors with almost as many interior colors. New cars generally come in 6 colors with 2 interior colors.

Stores used to have different items. So if you were looking for something, and didn't like what they had in one store, you could find a different one in another store. Now all the stores carry the same item with no choices.

Antiques were everyday items that are now prized because of their quality and uniqueness. Now we have ready made "collectibles" that will be worthless years from now because everybody saved their MIB stuff thinking they would make a fortune later.

Plenty more differences and I was not even around to see them at the time. And yes we have computers, dvd players, and I-pods now. But they do not make up for what we lost.

[Rawja]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1962, when median annual household income in the U.S. was over $15,000 less than it is now (adjusted for inflation). </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe in 1962 most households were a one income household where the wife did not work. So $15,000 additional for 2 incomes doesn't seem like a big improvement.</div></div>

Ummmmm... it's $ 15,000 <span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-style: italic">less</span></span> now.

The guilded age supplanted by a gilded age.

[Reatta Man]

Dave,

Once again, this is a <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">GM</span></span> forum, not a <span style="font-style: italic">Toyota </span>forum.

Please go down to your local Toyota dealer and fill out a job application if you want to run down GM and push Toyotas (no pun intended) all day.....

Highlighting the way GM did business 30+ years ago and comparing it to the way Toyota or Nissan or Honda does things today is beyond irrelevant.

Toyota makes some good cars, and they have some duds. GM makes some good cars and they have some duds. But each company's successes as well as their missteps are not connected, and are not really connected in this situation or in years gone by.

Joe

[charlier]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again, this is a <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">GM</span></span> forum, not a <span style="font-style: italic">Toyota </span>forum. </div></div>

With all due respect, this is an AACA Forum, NOT just a GM or Toyota Forum.

Last Time I checked, there are a LOT more vehicles than those two makes that comprise the AACA.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Highlighting the way GM did business 30+ years ago and comparing it to the way Toyota or Nissan or Honda does things today is beyond irrelevant. </div></div>

Pointing out the mis-steps of any vehicle manufacturer is sure to upset the fans of that make. Unfortunately, that does not change the Fact or the History that mis-steps were made. Some manufacturers are slower than others to learn from their mistakes while others are not. Automotive history has taught those willing to learn that much. Also examining a businees' history gives insight into the mistakes they repeated and how that contributed to both the company's mindset and their problems past and current.

Up until very recently some auto manufacturers had simply failed to realize or acknowledge that they needed to change they way they did/do business. It took their HUGE financial LOSSES and HUGE sales declines and a recession to knock it into their ever-so-thick heads.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Toyota makes some good cars, and they have some duds. GM makes some good cars and they have some duds. But each company's successes as well as their missteps are not connected, and are not really connected in this situation or in years gone by. </div></div>

Once again, with all due respect, I must disagree with you. To say that the way companies within an industry choose to do business does not impact other companies in that industry are not connected is simply not true. When a company introduces a new, innovative, product and is competitive price-wise how does that not impact the industry or competition? If one competitor has a more lean cost structure than another how does that not impact competition and the industry? If the public has a certain perception about a company (deserved or not) and it's products how does that not impact the situation? BTW, what I am talking about here can be applied to ANY Company in ANY industry not just autos.

When it comes to the current state of the US automakers there is more than enough blame to go around. Management, unions, workers, dealers, products, failed marketing, stubborness, arrogance, greed, unwillingness to change and a whole host of other reasons all contributed to the situation they find themselves in. Until most, if not all, of these challenges can be addressed, automakers in the USA face a bleak future no matter how much financial help the US Government gives them.

A wise man once said: "Those Who Fail to Learn from History are Doomed to Repeat It".

IMHO, that can be applied to many companies across many industries, including automakers.

[R W Burgess]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love all old cars and all makes. I have generally collected Buicks, Pontiacs and Chryslers though. I hate seeing GM brought to it's knees like this, wanting to sell 90% of itself to the union and government. <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Wouldn't you at least go out with a fight, and if you failed - take all the "owners" (i.e. UAW) with you? </span></span> </div></div>

Maybe we need to bring the title and the parties involved back to the top...or bottom as the case may be!

Wayne

[Rawja]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again, this is a GM forum, not a Toyota forum.

Please go down to your local Toyota dealer and fill out a job application if you want to run down GM and push Toyotas (no pun intended) all day.....

Highlighting the way GM did business 30+ years ago and comparing it to the way Toyota or Nissan or Honda does things today is beyond irrelevant</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe we need to bring the title and the parties involved back to the top...or bottom as the case may be!</div></div>

Gentlemen, with all due respect a discussion of the failure of GM MUST by its very definition include comparisons of GM's product and policies versus the products and strategies of the competitors that gobbled up it's once-formidable market share.

To wit:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same problem Cadillac had with Lexus/BMW/Mercedes/etc. before GM "cloned" them. The competition (specifically Civic/Corolla/Sentra/etc.) were being thoroughly redesigned and updated every 3-6 years despite the fact that they also were selling well, selling better in fact by the 1990s in both Cavalier's and Cadillac's cases. You put together a couple-3 decades of doing business like that as compared to your competitors,... what else could you expect?</div></div>

If reality continues to offend you, its YOU that has the problem.

Pablum feel-good "Yay GM" posts, conspiracy theories and lamentations over the disappearance of the "good old days" have their place I suppose, but don't provide much in the way of insightful analysis.

As for me I think the problem lies in the disappearance of opera lamps. When the domestics had 'em they were at the top of the sales heap. Or maybe landau bars? Hell, let's bring all those ersatz-elegance styling-cues back and see if it sells!

Most of us here (myself included) dropped out of the new car buying cycle a long time ago. For years I bought a new car or two every year, year in and year out. The last new car I bought/leased for myself was in 1998. When the lease came to an end I decided that it was way more interesting to drive an old car even at the same cost, that it ends up being less expensive to-boot was just icing on the cake. Since then it has been all "old" cars even for my daily driver(s). As someone who almost always bought GM for both myself and my businesses' fleet, I can say it cost them quite a few units.

So let me pose a rhetorical question:

In the end how is it different when I (or you) stop consuming new GM product in favor of old iron or Fords or Chryslers or for that matter Toyotas Volkswagens or Nissans? GM lost the sales, lost the profits, lost the share. Jingoistic attacks on your fellow Americans' patriotism ignores the fact that we all share some responsibility for the plight of GM.

Sure you can say that GM doesn't make anything that you find more appealing than your 19XX blah blah, and that is probably quite true. But how is it that you making that conscious, rational (or not) decision better than say someone deciding that they want a midsize family sedan that gets 48MPG City? Actually when you think about it, Dave's Prius makes a great deal more sense than "our" decisions because while I could certainly get a new GM vehicle that fulfills the functions of each of the vehicles I use, GM simply didn't offer a comparable model to the one Dave chose to purchase. They could've but they didn't.

Our overlords are always going on about the infallibility of "the free market". Well, it would appear that that market has spoken, no?

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As for me I think the problem lies in the disappearance of opera lamps. When the domestics had 'em they were at the top of the sales heap. Or maybe landau bars? Hell, let's bring all those ersatz-elegance styling-cues back and see if it sells! </div></div>

I knew it! It was those d@amn whitewall tires, wasn't it?!

BTW, I've already got my space oil and I'm <span style="font-style: italic">not</span> giving it up. I need to keep my space heated in the winter!

[Guest simplyconnected]

One short year ago, everyone thought GM should (out of the kindness of their Christian heart) buy Chrysler. You know, like, just stroke a check, it's yours, now all the nastyness is gone.

Then everyone was SHOCKED to learn of GM's true situation. Seems funny that everyone has all the answers but they really don't know crap! So what do we do? Start blaming.

The true blame falls on all of us. 350 Million Americans, yet nothing in our homes is made here because we made conscious decisions to cast our greenbacks for foreign goods. We can see what will happen to our "stimulus" money, Americans will clamor to Wal-Mart and buy more foreign stuff, which is exactly what got us here to begin with.

If the auto workers are so bad, judging by all the Americans laid-off across the country, America must have a whole lot of bad workers. And, why criticize the people who actually do the work?

I see bumper stickers all over that say, "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS".

I propose a new bumper sticker that says, "SUPPORT YOUR NEIGHBOR".

It frustrates me to know, most Americans still don't believe we're all in the same boat. I guess we're all too busy trying to look out for #1, and to hell with everyone else (except our troops).

- Dave

[Rawja]

We can all mourn the loss of GM's preeminence, I know I do.

Literally and metaphorically GM represents America's industrial might and it is emotionally difficult to see the formerly unbeatable colossus brought low. The automotive business however is one where fortunes can change almost overnight. The cyclical nature of car sales makes all automotive manufacturers subject to boom-bust cycles that happen regardless of the strategies brought to bear. But it is also an industry where if you come up with a winning product, your balance sheets can be nearly instantly transformed. Throw a few well-conceived models out there that capture the public's attention and dollars and bingo! you're back in the game.

Think Chrysler's brush with death in the late 70's, saved by the 'K' cars.

Ford saved by the Taurus (and GM shooting itself in the foot with its disastrous mid-80s downsizing and insulting badge-engineering practices).

Nissan pulled from the brink by Carlos Ghosn and Renault's revamp of the entire model line-up and brand identity earlier this century.

Fiat was in such bad shape a few years ago the GM paid 2 billion dollars NOT to buy it. Today, transformed by hot-selling new product and the capital that ensued, Fiat is poised to become the second or third largest automaker in the world.

There's no reason that GM can't rally back from the brink, all that is required is winning products. Impending death certainly has a way of focusing the mind and many an automakers' most ground-breaking works have resulted from a last-ditch effort to stave off oblivion. GM's transformation of Cadillac in recent years, the new Buick Lucerne, Chevy Camaro and the Chevy Volt all point to a promising future IMO.

While GM will never return to a 50% North American market share, nobody else will either. The value of it's storied brands and mind-share within the American public's imagination has not been completely eroded, and if GM can build upon it she will once again become a formidable competitor.

[Guest DagoRed]

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"> </span> <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'"><span style="font-weight: bold">NAFTA - No American Factories Taking Applications</span></span>

H. Ross Perot was right..!!

[Guest simplyconnected]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rawja</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We can all mourn the loss of GM's preeminence, I know I do. ...The value of it's storied brands and mind-share within the American public's imagination has not been completely eroded, and if GM can build upon it she will once again become a formidable competitor.</div></div> I'm sorry, Rog. Americans don't give a damn about GM, based on what they drive. Forget what folks say, a blind man can see the real truth.

Now that GM is writhing, they <span style="font-style: italic">certainly</span> won't buy GM products. The idea of buying a GM car to boost the company's health is absurd; if we didn't care before, we care even less right now. Most Americans aren't in a position to run out and buy a new car, stimulus or not.

Ford saw that strategy early and decided NOT to take gov't loans. Not that Ford is in any better shape, but they <span style="text-decoration: underline">appear</span> to be.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DagoRed</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"> </span> <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'"><span style="font-weight: bold">NAFTA - No American Factories Taking Applications</span></span>

H. Ross Perot was right..!!</div></div>

Lee Iacocca's words keep ringing in my ears, "NAFTA is good for America." Right... now all our jobs are gone and everyone is unemployed.

I used to hear, "Real Americans buy whatever the hell they WANT." Now, real Americans are buying whatever the hell they CAN! We don't have money and nothing is made here.

- Dave

[Reatta Man]

Just keep in mind that the car business in many ways is self-sustaining.

If GM, Ford, Chrysler (Chiat?) can hang on, people MUST buy cars and trucks. Right now, they are buying used (guess we're not in much of a recession when used car prices are going UP) but that just puts off the inevitable: Cars wear out.....

So, everyone is planning on a 10 million-per-year sales rate, but that is artificially low. We may never go to 17 million per year again any time soon, but keep in mind the age of the average car is nearly TEN years old! And, when the media finds something else to scare everyone about and the economy isn't their favorite topic, people will stop putting new or rebuilt engines in their 10-year-old car, the way more and more people are doing today.

Hey, even Cuba had to buy new cars; they just bought Peugots and Ladas.....

Right now, China is setting records for car sales and many of them are GM cars (Buick and Chevrolet). So, this isn't the end of the world, it is just one part of a cycle. Granted, not a very fun part of the cycle, but it IS a cycle.... Very likely, when our cycle goes on the upswing, THEY could go into a recession.

Let's just hope when the cycle goes back up (not if, but when) there will be GM, Ford and whatever Chrysler is called then.

Joe

[Guest simplyconnected]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just keep in mind that the car business in many ways is self-sustaining. ...Right now, China is setting records for car sales and many of them are GM cars (Buick and Chevrolet). ...Let's just hope when the cycle goes back up (not if, but when) there will be GM, Ford and whatever Chrysler is called then. </div></div> Joe, that's exactly my point. These bankrupt companies won't die, they will just leave (and leave a lot of debt HERE).

Americans will buy Chinese GM cars, or they won't buy GM cars at all. It's no different from our regular routine of buying foreign cars. In more kind words, when you go to buy a foreign car, GM will be there to sell you one, be it a Chevy, Buick, etc. Do you know the Emporer's official car is a Buick? Always has been. GM is healthy in China.

[Rawja]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We can all mourn the loss of GM's preeminence, I know I do. ...The value of it's storied brands and mind-share within the American public's imagination has not been completely eroded, and if GM can build upon it she will once again become a formidable competitor.</div></div>I'm sorry, Rog. Americans don't give a damn about GM, based on what they drive. Forget what folks say, a blind man can see the real truth.

Now that GM is writhing, they certainly won't buy GM products. The idea of buying a GM car to boost the company's health is absurd; if we didn't care before, we care even less right now. Most Americans aren't in a position to run out and buy a new car, stimulus or not.</div></div>

When I said "we" I meant literally we here discussing this topic. I don't expect the public to buy GM products based upon notions of sentimentalism or patriotism, but based on GM making desirable product, which in the end is why GM is where it is and is the only path out of the wilderness for them.

NAFTA and globalization are at best only tangentially related to GM's plight and only insofar as the erosion in wages among potential American customers, but on the flip-side of that they certainly benefitted from the reduced production costs when they shipped away those American jobs.

Ford's relative financial health compared to GM in this catastrophic downturn is more lucky timing than anything else. They did took out massive loans back in 2007 before the collapse of the financial markets that is providing them the capital they're burning through right now. Ford was facing the same problem of perpetually declining market share and losing money and the debt they took on was to invest in new product development that they hoped would turn that around.

Look, if the financial system hadn't imploded and the price of oil hadn't done what it did all through 2007, the old GM would have still been viable. They were revamping their product lines and from what the automotive press has been saying about their new vehicles, they were making significant strides towards making desirable world-class products. Unfortunately the rug was pulled out from under them. Almost every automaker is hemorrhaging money right now, it's just that when the company is already on shaky ground financially there's no reserve to carry it through the downturn.

[Reatta Man]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: simplyconnected</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> These bankrupt companies won't die, they will just leave (and leave a lot of debt HERE).

Americans will buy Chinese GM cars, or they won't buy GM cars at all. It's no different from our regular routine of buying foreign cars. In more kind words, when you go to buy a foreign car, GM will be there to sell you one, be it a Chevy, Buick, etc. Do you know the Emporer's official car is a Buick? Always has been. GM is healthy in China. </div></div>

I hope you are wrong, but in these uncharted waters that can't be compared to anything else in the history of the auto biz, I can't be sure you are wrong.

Ford (and Lincoln and Mercury) are looking better and better......

Joe

[JD in KC]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: simplyconnected</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Do you know the Emporer's official car is a Buick? Always has been. GM is healthy in China. </div></div>

Uh... The last Emperor of China abdicated in 1912. Just thought I'd mention it.

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

[quote name=Reatta Man}...Ford (and Lincoln and Mercury) are looking better and better......

Joe

I believe even in the current market (8-10 million annual sales) FORD projected profitability by 2011.