GM and Ford merger

[Guest imported_Buick Regal GS]

Ford and GM merger whats this about? Henry will be turning over in his grave,

[RocketDude]

I have no idea what your talking about, as far as a GM/Ford merger, but I'll guarantee Henry won't be alone if he does turn over in his grave..!! Coffins all over the world will be popping out of the ground, and a whole bunch of us live folks won't be to thrilled either.

Being GM tried and true since birth, I wouldn't be able to show my face around all of the ford people I have been berating for so many years.....

Say it ain't so, Joe.....

[serb]

Let's see now....where the hell is my soap box? Oh, here it is. this will be short and sweeet.

GM, FORD, Chrysler (little letters since they are really a German Company) do, in spite of popular belief, produce vehicles that are on par quality wise with anything the Japs are producing. If you think, they are getting what they deserve, you had better look around. Most telephone sevice jobs are being handled in India, Japs are producing cars whether in this country or overseas and bringing them in The electronics industry is non existent in this country, the textile industry is gone: look around, I am sure you can name more.

I live in a town where there is a Ford Stamping Plant, Delphi Thermal Plant (Harrison Radiator from which I am a retired manufacturing supervisor), American Axle and many associated and supplier plants. I see many foreign cars (even if the Japs are producing them in this country, they are still foreign) in the parking lots. Everybody in this country had better wake up and look around because if they still have a good job, it will soon be gone. The whole plan is to equalize the world, bring us down, and the rest of the world up so we are all equal and poor.

Little by little our economy is going to hell. Our kids will be the first generation that will not live better than their parents.

Shame on our government, shame on us!

I have said enough..........listen, I think we can almost hear the big foot about to stamp down on us and wipe us out.

Stevo

[Guest imported_Buick Regal GS]

maybe we'll be able to put a 5.0 in a grand national

[NTX5467]

I heard something about this on the radio early this morning, but just something about "talks" and that was all. Have not had time to do more research.

At ONE point in time, the financial whizzzes advocated that bigger is better and would result in massive cost savings due to various factors. Funny thing is that when Autonation tried that, it took how many "experienced", high level automotive industry types (usually from dealer reps, etc. rather than "real" industry people) to figure out that such a business model didn't really work as it was supposed to. Some of these same people also seemed to advocate the spin-off of ACDelco Electronics (now Delphi) and Ford's similar parts division (now Visteon) so they could unlock shareholder value and expand their businesses to other than just the parent automakers--we know how that worked out, too.

They always talk about cost savings due to combinations of synergies of the two (or more) entities, but those things never seem to really pan out nearly as well as their former advocates believed and claimed they would. Such savings were mentioned in the Renault-Nissan alliance, but it's yet to be determined how well a vehicle will do in both Oriental and European markets, with different sheet metal and a different dealer network. So, until things start to stutter and stall, these theories will be held up as "viable" situations that generate profits and "shareholder value".

There have been many editorial page cartoons on Bill Ford handing the operation over to "an outsider". Perhaps there is more cutting in the mix than Mr. Ford felt like being an active party to? Or might it be a "blame allocation" issue? We won't know for some time . . .

Ford and GM are not in the best of financial health at this time, so they are easy targets for the press as Chrysler was in the 1980s. Remember how the slightest product recall for Chryslers of that era would generate 3rd page (front section) news while GM's and Ford's similar situations (other than some specific Ford ignition system issues) were put farther back in the paper?

A problem as I see it is that there are multitudes of "analysts" that are ready and willing to talk to the media about what it'll take to fix various companies. Of course, they have done massive amounts of research and can allegedly predict what profits and liabilities exist with respect to particular products and operations. Basicly, THEY seem to know more about what's going on in the company than the people that work there and run the place! So they "talk" and get free advertising and exposure as "experts" in the same news articles that go world-wide.

Putting Ford and GM together as an "alliance" or "merger" might generate lots of buzz in the financial world as everybody scrambles to do their own "numbers" and see what might result. But it would be a mix of two cultures not unlike Chrysler and DaimlerBenz. I, personally, don't see any real good out of such a situation--short term or long term. We've seen how long it takes these things to get worked out and running well in the DaimlerChrysler situation. Interesting thing is that we're now seeing the "Chryslerization" of Mercedes in how things operate and run efficiently and expeditiously.

A much more viable situation, which was floated a week or so ago, is for Ford to buy up their outstanding shares of stock and take the company "private" again. Then, they can do what they desire to fix things or whatever--no Wall Street scrutiny or advice as it currently exists as no stock price or dividends are at stake. Then, the article mentioned, they could get things back on track, and have another stock sale for a "public" company. It noted that when they did that in 1956, the Ford Family profitted very nicely financially.

I wonder if all of the automotive industry analysts and consultants that now seem to be on every street corner used to be employed by the automotive industry? Laid off and now they are consultants for consulting firms with large names? Might be interesting to trace some of that information . . .

In reality, putting two companies with "issues" together is not going to solve anything or suddenly "fix" everything that might need fixing or enhancing. Ford and GM both were able to siphon off some of the more talented employees of the prior Chrysler Corporation.

Perhaps something to better speculate about would be that with the new Chrysler 300 LWB car and the upcoming Challenger, that will give the LX platform three different wheelbase lengths just like the prior C-body Chryslers had in "the old days" when there were full size PLYMOUTHS (119") and Dodges (122") and Chryslers (124") on three different wheelbase lengths. Let the Wall Street People ponder that!

In the mean time . . . stay tuned to your local Detroit area newspapers for more information . . .

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

RocketDude, I used to kid around that if Fords have to have bailing wire to hold them together (in the certain situations, it's made of stainless steel and called "safety wire" with a fancy installation device that twists it nicely) while GM vehicles used "super glue" (due to the amount of plastic items).

IF you combine Ford and GM, the result will be a special "safety wire" that does not require twisting, but has a layer of "touch sensitive" super glue on the outer surface of the wire, therefore, no twisting needed, just touch the two areas of wire together or to what they are holding, and it's all done. Of course, with the additional holding strength of a whole line of reinforced adhesive rather than just "spots", things should work better with less operational stresses and better reliability. Just wait until the bean counters try to decrease costs by using segments of super glue rather than a continuous coating . . .

Don't worry about having to "eat crow" with the Ford people you might have made comments about, just welcome them "as family" and go burn some rubber.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Reatta Man]

I think this would be incredible! Imagine....Ford and GM NOT trying to stab each other while Toyota, Hyundai and Kia eat their lunch? Brilliant!

Yeah, the old car guys are going to HATE it....but would you rather see Ford and GM go the way of most British makes? Can you say Studebaker? No? Try AMC, Hudson, Packard and many others.

Some people may think the failure of a major American company is not possible, but just look at AT&T, big tobacco (yeah, I know, they make poison, but that is what many say today about SUVs) and American steel.

Anything they have to do to survive and stay an American company is fine with me.

Joe

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Yeah, the old car guys are going to HATE it....but would you rather see Ford and GM go the way of most British makes? Can you say Studebaker? No? Try AMC, Hudson, Packard and many others. </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:"purple"] 1968. Guess where: </span>

<span style="font-style: italic">"...Yeah, the old car guys are going to HATE it....but would you rather see Standard-Triumph and British Motor Corp. go the way of most French makes? Can you say Tabot? No? Try Bugatti, D-B, Panhard and many others...." </span>

There are a lot of lessons of the 1960s being forgotten lately, aren't there? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I still get an eerie feeling every time I see one of these new GM badges. The similarity between it and the BL badge on my Triumph is striking. Size, shape, location, purpose, timing, corporate situation and positioning are all markedly similar.

[NTX5467]

Dave, by observation, most of those NOW making decisions were NOT old enough in the 1960s to have been paying attention to such things . . . OR those that were old enough didn't pay attention . . . OR didn't bother to understand what was going on and why, much less that what they should have been paying attention to or "learning" would ever be relevant in the future. Guess they forgot that many things repeat about every 20 or so years??? Or perhaps they were not a student of automotive industry history back then . . . or now . . . or were too busy making their own history to notice other historical things going on, with all due respect.

Who ever would have thought that young males would now be wearing Beetles-era longer hair now, but it's happening for some reason . . . for what it's worth. Not to mention the low-rise jeans on young females. Guess flare-leg pants are next?

In almost any industry, over time, there will be some great and significant smaller entities that will not survive for one reason or another. There will also be smaller entities that will do well enough to be "consolidated" or "merged" into larger entities, sometimes losing their particular identity or having it bolstered with additional funding to "grow the business" in an intelligent manner. There will be larger entities that will "consume" smaller regional entities to increase their corporate size and market penetration on a national level, which can further erode the local small business climate.

Consider how many brands of gasoline we had in the 1960s that also had their own refinery operations and tire/battery/accessory programs. Many were regional and some were much larger. Each brand of fuel had their own "claim to fame" and special benefits for using it rather than a competitor's fuel--and this is NOT considering the many private brand stations that always seemed to have "blinking lights and arrows" on the sign pole out front, which were all self-serve low price situations--the stations whose particular fuel blending was done "in tank in transit" from the fuel terminal to the station rather than being blended by the selling corporation's own operations and then shipped to the local distributors and their stations. Look at how things are now configured and the loss of automotive brands can look somewhat insignificant in comparison.

The problem with all of these petroleum "combinations" is that product differentiation is now much more blurred than it was 20-30 years ago. If things continue, the old saying "They're all the same" could well be true. Perhaps it's already more true than many might desire to admit??

Oh well . . . time goes on

NTX5467

[pphil]

i read a couple of years ago that ford and gm were going to build a transmission plant together.that way costs were cut in half for both companies. i think they were going to be building a 6 speed auto.

but i have been known to be wrong.

scott

[Centurion]

I love Peter DeLorenzo's response to the GM - Ford merger speculation this morning on his autoextremist.com website, where he gives the media three thumbs down for its coverage.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Media. From the "Making Mountains Out of a Molehill" File, Automotive News ran the headline, "The ultimate alliance: GM and Ford" underneath their masthead this past Monday, which set off a firestorm of media hand-wringing that was simply unwarranted given the real story. It was bad enough that too many in the media stooped to becoming "Masters of the Obvious" in their coverage of the Ford announcement last Friday - our local TV broadcasts being by far the worst - per usual - with their non-stop saturation coverage, which began with rumors last Wednesday, followed by intense speculation on Thursday, with the story in full lather last Friday at 5:00AM on the local morning news shows. But when Automotive News printed the story at the top of the front page this week that GM and Ford had held "talks" about a possible alliance or merger, all hell broke loose. One local station in particular (WWJ AM radio, the CBS affiliate) went completely bonkers this past Monday morning with alarmist coverage that was so over the top that they went so far as to interview people at Ford and GM plants making it sound as if it were a done deal. It was nonsensical, dumb and flat-out irresponsible - other than that it was a great job. Did GM and Ford hold talks? Yes, but they were very informal, brief and were immediately tabled. There are certainly "behind the curtain" synergies that could yield tremendous cost savings for the two companies (they already have a jointly-developed transmission program) if they wanted to actually pursue them, but in the marketplace itself it would be nothing short of the world's largest train wreck. So the likelihood of an actual merger would be completely insane - and it's just notgonnahappen.com. </div></div>

[NTX5467]

Actually, the "New Process" manual transmissions in light trucks and some transfer cases were also joint venture situations with GM and other USA companies (I believe it was Chrysler in this case, the "old" and "real" Chrysler Corp).

The "reborn" Chevy Nova (of the 1980s) was a joint venture car with Toyota (actually, a "home market" Toyota Corolla with a few GM items on it, built in CA in a joint venture with Toyota).

Don't forget that GM has also "partnered" with some vendors too. Bosch on fuel injection systems for the Tuned Port 5.0L & 5.7L Camaro/Corvette motors. Bilstein for shocks on recent light duty pickups. Getrag for recent manual transmissions for light duty pickups. I beleive there are some others, but I can't recall what they might be (at this time). Of course, GM could be said to "partner" with the tire companies in developing and designing their "TPC Spec" tires that are OEM on GM vehicles (and have been TPC-spec'd since the 1975 model year).

Seems like there's also some "partnering" on low emissions vehicles of the future, partially funded by the government (initiated during the Clinton administration).

Even if the 6-speed automatics are partnered with Ford, I suspect the cases would be unique (or at least with a detachable bellhousing) to each engine family and related torque capacity--maybe even some different gear ratio sets too. With the New Process transmissions, there was little interchange in gearing and some internal parts between GM and Chrysler, plus each had their own part number systems so you could not crossreference anything that way (unless you were comparing the actual parts side by side). In other words, GM and Chrysler would (most probably) have their own engineering standards for particular parts in the co-developed transmissions (in the case of New Process), which will probably be true with the GM/Ford 6-speed automatics.

In looking at a steering column from a 1980 Chevy Caprice and a 1980 Chrysler Newport, they look the same on the outside (casting fonts for the casting the ignition key cylinder is in, for example), but once you get inside the column, you quickly find out that both columns are totally different in the parts in them. Saginaw built both columns, but each "customer" put their own standards on what went inside them.

On the GM-Ford supposed "merger" deal, it seems that the financial types seem to always tout the cost savings of these combination deals. Just like Roger Smith tried to do when he was running GM . . . make them all alike, more common parts, etc. . . . and we know where GM's fortunes went with that situation. "Cookie cutter cars" was one comment used by the automotive media (just like they liked to use "stodgy" to describe certain car brands several years ago)--not in a complimentary orientation.

Then came vehicles with "purpose designed parts/architecture". For example, a 1982 Camaro body knew when it was welded together whether it was to be a 4 cylinder automatic, a V-6 manual, a Z-28, or whatever . . . unlike prior versions of Camaro that had one body that was used for all applications. "Purpose engineered" was supposed to save money, but by the end of that body series of F-body, much of that had disappeared--another 1980s era orientation that was quietly evolved out of, only to return later (for one reason or another).

Just some observations,

NTX5467