# Will GM file for Chapter 11?



## cowasaki (Feb 13, 2008)

Just thought I would run a quick poll to see what you guys think about the current state of GM and its potential for filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

I am kinda sitting on the fence. Half of me thinks that GM won't have to cancel its stock and reissue them because the bond holders will somehow strike a deal, thus avoiding chapter 11. Perhaps wishful thinking?

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I have been following this very closely and am very interested in the result and comments from people in this forum.





Disclosure: I own shares of GM (hmmm, kinda like playing poker at this point though!)


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I don't think they'll have a choice. There is a need for severe restructuring and that may only be possible under such protection.


----------



## cowasaki (Feb 13, 2008)

Very true. The choices at this point are very limited. However there are options. 

I find it hard to believe that the government has been and continues (GMAC loan) to dump money into GM and then will turn there back and let them fall. The UAW agreement got GM one step further from Ch. 11, however there is still a lot in the balance.

I'm not sure if I'm hoping or actually being rational at this point, but thinking of all the pension funds that hold GM stock, this could get pretty tricky and ugly if they do end up in bankruptcy. Leading me to believe that they could dodge this bullet.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I still can't help but think that ALL measures to help both GM and Chrysler are futile. Good money after bad as it were. At some point an investor has to have a realization that they have to cut their losses. You can't dig your way out of a hole.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The government is an ass, and Obama is perhaps the most naive and egotistic politician I have seen holding high office. GM will fail under his direction. Better let it bankrupt itself now and stay far away from amateur industrialists. The government is the only entity capable of running GM worse than it has run itself.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
And that amount of malfeasance may only be possible if the government brings in experts at such things, like the dude that Bush sent to save New Orleans from Katrina...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed, EP: The biggest tragedy of Katrina was that people allowed the government to convince them that it could help them.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Agreed, EP: The biggest tragedy of Katrina was that people allowed the government to convince them that it could help them.


The Government did much more damage than any hurricane could do, because a hurricane only lasts a few days, while the Government endures.

FEMA showed that they are good at doing small things, like they can fix a small town for a few billion - but they have no idea how to save anything more than a handful of people at a time. But then again, it was not just a FEMA problem, it was an entire malaise that settled into the highest eschelons of power, where image and polls are far more important that getting a job done.

I think Government Motors will be a big failure. As if GM didn't have problems with brain damaged executives that cashed in fast while the boat was sinking - wait until they add layers of bureaucrats attempting to create their fiefdoms featuring even less efficiency and decision making capability that the current crop of turkeys, while requiring an ever inflating budget.

We seen the same junk in Canada, with Crown Corporations that were utter failures, that only existed because they were connected via umbilical cord to the taxpayers wallet. Crown Corporations were nothing more than a festering repository of executives that direct layers and layers of management, that in turn, serve only to hinder the three actual workers that do the work. Not only that, they turn into insatiable dinosaurs that swallow wads of money, and the more money they get, the more inefficient and wasteful they become.

I figure Government Motors is doomed because they concentrated on ancient technology and have products that don't fit today's marketplace, and can not respond quickly enough to what people want (and when they do make something people want, they can it because of "profits"). They will simply become a reseller of inferior, made in China by the lowest bidder products - much like the Crown Corporations that tender bids to the lowest bidder, which will guarantee the maximum cost overruns and lowest long term quality...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

GM has no choice but to file for chapter 11 and as soon as they do the sooner they will come out of it a much leaner and stronger company especially after they shed the dead weight of Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and unfortunately Saab(I love Saab's).

Laterz


----------



## Sitting Bull (Feb 4, 2008)

Not quite yet,
They have not taken enough of our money yet. Just a little more and then... OH well sorry folks but.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> GM has no choice but to file for chapter 11 and as soon as they do the sooner they will come out of it a much leaner and stronger company especially after they shed the dead weight of Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and unfortunately Saab(I love Saab's).


I don't think any of those marques were "dead weight". Pontiac's problem began when it became a catch all for bad corporate design ideas, which scared people away. They used to sell every Saturn they produced, until they turned them into an expensive SAAB wannabe. They made tons of money on Hummer, but they stopped making the cool Hummers, and started peddling junk like the H2 and H3 - which the rich avoid like the plagues. SAAB was a nutters car, but GM made it into something conventional and bland, so the nutters went elsewhere for their fix, while regular folk ended up saving a few grand buying the same thing but as a Saturn.

GM is certainly Chapter 11, and other chapters, because I do not think they can survive in the long run. They are just too far behind the competition, and are too hooked on the idea that people will wait a decade or two until they start building cars with the same technologies that all other makers had ten years ago. The big squeeze will be in Obama manages to push his new emissions and CAFE standards through, which should be the needle that ends GM.

Even GM is thinking that, since they recently lowered their market share objective from 30% to 16%, and are going to shed plants until they can sustain a 16% share. This will leave them without capital and resources in which to design up to date vehicles that people want - and in response, they will become nothing more than a badge and reseller of other maker's cars. They other deal was in trucks, but they have now conceeded the truck market to Ford.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> I don't think any of those marques were "dead weight". Pontiac's problem began when it became a catch all for bad corporate design ideas, which scared people away. They used to sell every Saturn they produced, until they turned them into an expensive SAAB wannabe. They made tons of money on Hummer, but they stopped making the cool Hummers, and started peddling junk like the H2 and H3 - which the rich avoid like the plagues. SAAB was a nutters car, but GM made it into something conventional and bland, so the nutters went elsewhere for their fix, while regular folk ended up saving a few grand buying the same thing but as a Saturn.


The only good Pontiac's at this moment are the G8 and the Vibe everything else can shoved out the door.

Saturn never sold the amount of cars that GM wanted them for remember that they started Saturn as a way to try to fight all the cool imports at the time, Saturn has never been a Saab wannabe what GM has done in the last couple of years is bring over several Opel models and rebadge them as Saturn's a good move but too little too late to help GM out.

Hummers are cool looking trucks and even the H3 is capable of tackling the Rubicon without much problem, I had my name on a list at my local GM dealer for a H3 Diesel but that project was canned about a year ago so I've given up hope of owning a Hummer.

As for Saab's yes they are a nutters car and I'm a car nut and I've always wanted one even now with GM's problems I would still love to get my hands on the new 9-3 sport wagon, the 9-3 wagon actually has more cargo space then my current SUV and from my last test drive its allot more fun to drive than the SUV too.

OK now you have peaked my curiosity please show me some documents that show a Saab being sold as a Saturn, there might of been platform sharing on some level(ie: I know that the 9-3 platform is shared with Saturn Aura) but I don't think that there were Saab(ie:9-2, 9-3, 9-5, 9-7) being sold as Saturn's like there were Opel's (ie:Astra=Astra, GT=Sky, Insignia=Aura, Vue=Antara) the only Saturn model that doesn't have an Opel equal is the Outlook.

Laterz


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

*They are already there.*

No to put too fine a point on this but, GM is already in Chapter 11 and CCAA. If you look at the past year and what they have done, they are in a form of Chapter 11 now.

As I have stated before, GM [ and the rest of the Big 3 ] ran out dated business plans and did not use its economies of scale to its advantage.

Right now Ford looks like a star, but Ford literally mortgaged very thing [ Blue Oval and all ] two years ago....if there is not a turn around soon Ford's cash burn will surpass that of GM...that would mean all of the American companies would be liable for C11. Once that happens [ hopefully never but....] the suppliers will fall and so on and so on.

This is a large industry which impacts everyone some way or another.


----------



## cowasaki (Feb 13, 2008)

hmmm...The results speak for themselves. I thought that it might be a little more balanced. Like 30-70.

If GM files for chapter 11, it stands to reason that they will not sell a single vehicle after that fact and while in bankruptcy court. This process could take a while, which would deep six them for sure.

The chain reaction would be huge in the near future, but would round out down the road. 

Having said that, I still have a hard time seeing GM fall. I think they'll strike a deal with the UAW and the bond holders will take that horrid debt deal, or something similar and the common shares will be diluted beyond belief which will have huge backlash effects as well. 

Tomorrow is D-Day! I have come to the conclusion that either way its gonna be ugly.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

from Autoblog, We Obsessively Cover The Auto Industry



> These are some confusing times in the automotive world. For the past few years, it seemed as though Porsche was primed to rule the world. It was selling plenty of product, and more importantly, it was quickly gobbling up shares of German juggernaut Volkswagen. Dried-up credit markets and slow sales have conspired to put a big wrench in Porsche's plans, though.
> 
> We already knew that the Stuttgart sports car (and SUV) maker has ditched plans to take over VW and instead plans to merge the two companies. German magazine Der Spiegel (via The Local) is reporting that times are so tight at Porsche that it actually skirted bankruptcy for three days in March. The German automaker received a 700 million euro loan ($978 million USD) from VW to stay out of trouble, but needs another 2.5 billion euros (nearly $3.5B USD) to stay in business. Porsche has tried to tap the German government to receive more loans to pare down the enormous debt it had incurred in attempting to buy VW. In fact, Porsche, which sells fewer than 100,000 vehicles per year, has accrued an astonishing 9 billion euros worth of debt (around $12.6B USD). That's 50% more debt than Chrysler.


It's not only the NA domestics that are in trouble Porsche is just one of quite a few car company's that are in financial trouble maybe they should have been keeping there eye on there sales instead of VW, rumors have it that there have been a couple of Chinese manufacturers asking for help, Honda and Toyota have asked the Japanese government for some kind of help, Jaguar and Land Rover's new master Tata motors asked the British government for help as well, SsangYong Motor out of South Korea was allowed to go into South Korea's version of Chapter 11, so as everyone can see it's not only NA that is facing this problem its everyone.

Laterz


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

K_OS said:


> OK now you have peaked my curiosity please show me some documents that show a Saab being sold as a Saturn, there might of been platform sharing on some level(ie: I know that the 9-3 platform is shared with Saturn Aura) but I don't think that there were Saab(ie:9-2, 9-3, 9-5, 9-7) being sold as Saturn's like there were Opel's (ie:Astra=Astra, GT=Sky, Insignia=Aura, Vue=Antara) the only Saturn model that doesn't have an Opel equal is the Outlook.
> 
> Laterz


Hey EvanPitts,

it's been 5 days I think you've had enough time to come up with some sort of proof so where is it.

Laterz


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

K_OS said:


> It's not only the NA domestics that are in trouble Porsche is just one of quite a few car company's that are in financial trouble


Porsche is in a particularly bad position, as they make expensive toys - which are tough to sell during a recession. Nobody buys a Porsche because they need transportation.

Even multimillionaires probably aren't feeling particularly flush these days, as most of them have probably seen 20% - 40% of their net worth evaporate in the past year.



K_OS said:


> Honda and Toyota have asked the Japanese government for some kind of help,


Honda threatened to leave Japan altogether, and Toyota is burning cash faster than GM at this point...



K_OS said:


> Jaguar and Land Rover's new master Tata motors asked the British government for help as well


Jaguar / Land Rover have the same problem Porsche does - discretionary purchases are the first to go in a recession.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I want a GM 2010 muscle car _not_

But unfortunately...I think they'll probably build one anyways.

Dicks


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm Porche's situation had nothing to do with its sales...

The World from Berlin: 'Porsche's VW Plan Was Pure Megalomania' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

It came within a hair of a reverse takeover of VW.

To compare the Jaguar/Landover situation to Porche is ludicrous.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> Porsche is in a particularly bad position, as they make expensive toys - which are tough to sell during a recession. Nobody buys a Porsche because they need transportation.


I'll agree with Macdoc and say that Porsche just bit off more than they could chew as they're sales probably did tank a bit last year but Porsche's problem comes from not having any significant launches last year, Ferrari and Lamborghini had a banner year in 2008 and sold every car that came out of the factory. As for buying a Porsche just for transportation I know a few people that have done just that and given the opportunity I would as well but I'm not the sports car type.

Laterz


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

K_OS said:


> As for buying a Porsche just for transportation I know a few people that have done just that and given the opportunity I would as well but I'm not the sports car type.


Buying a Porsche to use as a daily driver is not the same as buying it just because you need transportation. You might need transportation, and decide to splurge on a Porsche - but your basic need for transportation can be met with a much cheaper car.

I'm aware of the Porsche / VW deal, but I still stand by my comment that all of these high end cars are discretionary purchases, and thus their sales will be hit harder in a recession.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That is a far cry from what you implied.  - lumping Porsche in the same financial category of problems as Landrover and Jaguar was flat out wrong.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

*Just In*

From wheels.ca



> TOKYO–Global production at Japan's top automakers continued to decline in April.
> 
> Toyota, the world's biggest automaker, reported Thursday its global production tumbled 46.5 per cent in April from a year ago to 433,979 vehicles.
> 
> ...


Like the NA manufacturers even the Japanese are feeling the pinch in these tough economic times.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> Buying a Porsche to use as a daily driver is not the same as buying it just because you need transportation. You might need transportation, and decide to splurge on a Porsche - but your basic need for transportation can be met with a much cheaper car.


sorry but the type of people that buy a Porsche for transportation won't settle for anything cheaper hence the reason why Porsche has the Cayenne and soon the Penamera 4 door sedan and if Porsche didn't offer these cars there are other companies that do, Porsche is just catering to there customers needs.

Laterz


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

K_OS said:


> sorry but the type of people that buy a Porsche for transportation won't settle for anything cheaper


There are fewer of these people in a recession, and the ones that are left may well decide to drive the "old" Porsche for another year.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GM's stock price plunged below $1 a share Friday, reaching its lowest level since the Great Depression, as investors anticipated the bankruptcy filing.

The company's stock peaked on April 28, 2000, when it closed at $93.63.

Sad, but how the mighty have fallen. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Sad that one of the only Chevies I'd consider, the Chevrolet Captiva 7 passenger MPV with manual transmission not available in Canada, is a Daewoo product.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gummit Motors 
The details...

GM bankruptcy plan - The Globe and Mail


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

cowasaki said:


> Just thought I would run a quick poll to see what you guys think about the current state of GM and its potential for filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.


She's a done deal.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

cowasaki said:


> Just thought I would run a quick poll to see what you guys think about the current state of GM and its potential for filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.


Appears she's a done deal.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Should have happened last summer. Two presidents have joined forces to make this far worse than it needed to be.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

The question I have is this. Will the "New GM" as they are starting to call themselves be in a position to survive, or will we be doing this dance again in a couple of years?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

8127972 said:


> The question I have is this. Will the "New GM" as they are starting to call themselves be in a position to survive, or will we be doing this dance again in a couple of years?


From what I can tell, Government Motors will be a shadow of its former self, trying to peddle teeny cars in a market in which never excelled. The only thing the government hasn't yet done is to force people to buy their cars-a necessary part of their salvation that has been mysteriously overlooked. Since this is what Obama wants the company to do, he will have to bail it out a second time, but the company will be so small then, the bail-out package will be more affordable.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I wonder what Vancouver's GM Place will be renamed to...


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

It will be interesting to see what product GM rolls out in the next 2-3 years. With such large stakes in the auto-maker and seats on the boards, U.S. and Canadian governments may force it to produce hybrids that don't scare consumers out of the dealerships with their ridiculous sticker prices.

My Ford Escape lease is up, and I thought once again as I did with the previous two... how about the hybrid? The dealership did everything in its power to prevent me from getting one - the incentives for the regular models made it many thousands cheaper. Which is truly a shame.

One thing can certainly be said... gone are the days of the $80,000 Escalade pickups and the incredibly butt-ugly Silverados with their mutant body cladding. Hummer will no doubt be resurrected by someone who will make it what it is supposed to be... a niche vehicle. It, sadly, had become what the Shelbys of '68-70 did - just another Mustang GT coming off the assembly line, nothing like the Carroll Shelbys of '65-67.

Shame to see Pontiac go, especially since most if not all of the Buick line is the ugliest junk ever in the history of the automobile world. Sure Tiger Woods smiles beside the abortion-inspired Buick Rendezvous but the guy's probably got several Ferraris and Porsches in his garage!

What of the newly revived muscle cars... the Camaro, the Charger, the retro toys like the PT Cruiser, the HHR, the SSR... all highly impractical models when you consider what Ford has been able to do with the Mustang in the past few years. The Mustang comes in so many flavours to suit so many tastes, just like the original in 1965... no GM model has ever come close to matching in sales.

Funny, Chevrolet has a commercial that pokes fun at Honda because Honda produced lawnmowers... I have to chuckle because that may be where GM is headed... ;-)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacAndy said:


> It will be interesting to see what product GM rolls out in the next 2-3 years. With such large stakes in the auto-maker and seats on the boards, U.S. and Canadian governments may force it to produce hybrids that don't scare consumers out of the dealerships with their ridiculous sticker prices.


That would be the old way of operating that got these bums into trouble--offering vehicles for less than the cost of making them.


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

Is that true, specifically with hybrids? Are their engines 2-3 times the cost of a traditional gas-powered engine? The rest of the vehicle is the same so it just comes down to the engine, no? Why is Toyota apparently so successful with them?

My understanding is that dealerships do not want to sell them because there is nothing in them for ongoing maintenance... and that's a huge part of it that will have to change in the coming few years.

Not saying that I'm necessarily in favour of government intervention... but heck, it's our tax dollars and it's our government bailing them out, so I'm curious to see what affect this will have on the product in the next 2-3 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacAndy said:


> Is that true, specifically with hybrids? Are their engines 2-3 times the cost of a traditional gas-powered engine?


Honestly, I'm not sure. My guess would be that the initial cost of research, development, tooling and marketing would make earlier models more expensive regardless of the ultimate per-unit cost of producing them full out.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

From what I understand Obama has decreed that GMs pensions and health benefits be stolen to pay off a pair of big Banksters 100¢ on the dollar. People laughed when I said he struck me as same old same old. 

The jury is in, US taxpayers need to try to launch a recall of this jerk.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dona83 said:


> I wonder what Vancouver's GM Place will be renamed to...


Hyundai Place...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> From what I understand Obama has decreed that GMs pensions and health benefits be stolen to pay off a pair of big Banksters 100¢ on the dollar. People laughed when I said he struck me as same old same old.
> 
> The jury is in, US taxpayers need to try to launch a recall of this jerk.


They even conned people into believing that people on the assembly line are making $80 an hour, and that they only deserve $10 - while the executives that ruined GM pocketed billions of dollars in cash for their stupidity and for all the time they wasted fooling around at the golf and country club.

Government Motors is now 72.5% owned by the people - most of whom are driving Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Ford, VW, etc. This entire episode is such a fiasco, they should have let GM fold because, really, the Government didn't save cool car companies, like Studebaker, Packard, Cord, Auburn, Stutz, Duesenburg, Miller, etc.

Good to see that Obama's Hope and Change message is "Hope you have some Change left over after we unveil the biggest corporate fruad possible". beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacAndy said:


> Is that true, specifically with hybrids? Are their engines 2-3 times the cost of a traditional gas-powered engine? The rest of the vehicle is the same so it just comes down to the engine, no? Why is Toyota apparently so successful with them?


A modern Atkinson cycle engine used in a Hybrid is no more or less complex than the Otto cycle engine used in a conventional engine, especially since all Toyotas and Hondas employ variable valve timing mechanisms (like VVTi or VTEC). The engines themselves are actually a little less expensive, since they have less strain placed upon them (since they run within a very small RPM band, optimized for the best efficiently), and are smaller (like 1.2L or 1.5L, rather than say, 1.8L or 2.4L)

The most expensive part is actually the battery - but improved battery technology has reduced the price while boosting the range. Early Hybrids used NiCd or MiMH cells, now they are migrating to much higher charge densities with Lithium Ion. Even in conventional batteries, charge densities have at least doubled with the adoption of technologies such as the NiCd Millenium Cell.

With the drop in battery price, the most expensive item is the drive train, which because it employs motive power from both the engine and the electric motors (Synergy).

The cost of the car is not much of a factor in the end, because people will spend outrageous cash on a car that has frivolous options but is the same as a regular car otherwise. Think if something like the Lincoln Continental from the mid-90's, which was nothing more than a Taurus with a squared off rear window and a hundred gadgets that would bust inside of five years. People talk about the "pay back period", when really, people buy SUVs that will never go off road, chew up 9MPG, and rarely if ever will carry a payload or even more than one person and their lunch bag.

The problem with the Hybrid is that the North American makers really didn't want to get into them, just like they were reluctant to add anything smattering of modernity, like fuel injection (you could buy a VW with fuel injection twenty years before GM devised that throttle body garbage). When California was threatening to mandate a Zero Emissions Vehicle, and the Clinton Administration was pumping billions into PNGV - the Japanese really jumped to it, thinking that they may be far behind the curve. Hence, they beat everyone to the market. But not really - since the Automotive Museum in Oshawa has an example of a Hybrid that was built a hundred years ago...

Much of Toyota's success is not actually based on their sale of Hybrid vehicles, but rather, the licensing of the technology to companies like Ford that had delayed their program for so very long. Plus, it is not just a Toyota or a Honda thing, but that the Japanese Government decided to fund Hybrid research, and Toyota and Honda designed two separate systems using two different methods, and hence, cornered the market. The Japanese have long engaged in such things, like funding Mazda's Wankel Engine program, not because of fuel efficiency or massive horsepower per kilogram, but as a test bed for metallurgical research. This kind of stuff just doesn't happen in North America, where the car makers are entirely happy cranking out their obsolete designs using the old tried and true materials that self-destruct at 5000RPM..



> My understanding is that dealerships do not want to sell them because there is nothing in them for ongoing maintenance... and that's a huge part of it that will have to change in the coming few years.


This is kind of a scam - dealers are out to sell cars, and if Hybrids are available, they will sell them. The problem is that alternative fueled cars from GM or Chrysler are nothing more than vapour - promises that look cool in ads but are never to be available at a dealership near you. If the dealer can't get one from the factory, then they will obviously be reluctant to attempt to sell you one, not because of maintenance or lack of it, but because the product is not available.

If a lack of on going maintenance was the dealers concern - they would never have bought into franchises that feature reliable cars, like Hondas and Toyotas. Really, they'd all want to be selling Chrysler Neons and Minivans only - because that would be the fattest profit possible.



> so I'm curious to see what affect this will have on the product in the next 2-3 years.


I think Chrysler will make it through, since they have a number of appealing niche products. GM, on the other hand, is destined to be a reseller of other people's product. So if you want to see what GM is going to be selling in three years - I'd suggest checking out Daewoo, or some hitherto unheard Chinese manufacturing company that they will rebadge. Besides, after they toss half the dealerships, GM's will become hard to find.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

8127972 said:


> The question I have is this. Will the "New GM" as they are starting to call themselves be in a position to survive, or will we be doing this dance again in a couple of years?


Unless they abolish the executives and directors that caused this mess in the first place, and perhaps they hire a few engineers to design some modern engines rather than revisitng the same poop from the 60's that should have stayed in the 60's - there will be many more bailouts.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> That would be the old way of operating that got these bums into trouble--offering vehicles for less than the cost of making them.


Don't forget the easy financing: zero down, zero interest, zero first twelve payments, and a $12,000 cash back incentive so you can go out and buy a Smart or a Vespa to commute in because the giant GM SUV costs over $150 to fill once gas spikes up in price... beejacon


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> I'd suggest checking out Daewoo


do you even know who owns Daewoo?

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> and perhaps they hire a few engineers to design some modern engines rather than revisitng the same poop from the 60's that should have stayed in the 60's


Have you read a GM spec sheet in the last 10 years?

Laterz


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes, that's why I said Daewoo...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> Have you read a GM spec sheet in the last 10 years?
> 
> Laterz


Yes, they still use the ancient 5.7L V8, as well as continuing to use the 3.8L V6 - both are relics of the 60's, and they do not have a 1.8L I4 engine to be competitive with Toyota / Honda / VW, nor a 2L I4 to compete with Ford and Mazda. With all of the talk that goes on, GM has come to this point because they persisted in dragging out an endless series of minor modifications to engines that had seen much better days - in the 70's.

As for emissions standards, GM is also retrograde, trying to push their "EcoTec" garbage, rather than getting with the program of going LEV and ULEV like all of the other manufacturers long ago did. For the billions and billions that the Governments have doled out to GM, they continue to have a product line that is so retrograde, I doubt that anyone will give up on what they have now.

Even in niche markets, GM has little more than some reheats that have SS decals on them. They don't have SVT like Ford does, doesn't have a sports car like the Mustang, and with the closure of their truck plant, they have given that laurel to Ford as well, as the F-150 holds even more market share in trucks than ever. GM came out with too little, too late, and offers nothing that people are interested in. And that is not just me saying stuff - the numbers show it, a fifteen year constant decline in market share as GMs products became almost invisible to purchasers who simply went elsewhere for a whole variety of reasons that GM can't fix.

However, GM does have FlexFuel in Brazil, and while they sell lots of FlexFuel cars there - it is curious to see Chrysler being the flag bearer for FlexFuel in this market. GM fragged themselves through years of stupidity and bad decisions, which is only made worse by the fact that they are going to drop Pontiac - meaning that Pontiac buyers will end up in the same place that Oldsmobile drivers ended up: in a Toyota / Honda / Ford or Mazda. Getting rid of Saturn will do the same for those people.

Hummer is a prime example of what went wrong. The original Hummer was ubercool, and would have only been more cool if it had been available with the kevlar body and diesel with snorkel. The H2 was garrish, so cool people went elsewhere, while the H3 was blah. Unlike the original Hummer, I doubt the H3 would survive a climb up a curb onto the sidewalk, let alone doing some Pikes Peak.

GM not only has a technology problem, they have a very real image problem, something that was made worse on insisting that cool products be converted into bland junk. SAAB was successful because it was a nutter's car, and once it was platformed and GM'd - really, nutters went elsewhere. It's that corporate culture that clobbered GM - a culture of unbridled conceit, limitless blindness, a total misunderstanding of the market and what people really want, and a giant case of arrogance that had GM think they could trot out any piece of garbage, glue a bage to it, and expect to reap profits from customers that were little more than sheep.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Yes, that's why I said Daewoo...


I don't think you do as the official company name is GM-Daewoo and it's been that way for at least 5 years now except most people just keep on calling it Daewoo.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Yes, they still use the ancient 5.7L V8, as well as continuing to use the 3.8L V6 - both are relics of the 60's, and they do not have a 1.8L I4 engine to be competitive with Toyota / Honda / VW, nor a 2L I4 to compete with Ford and Mazda. With all of the talk that goes on, GM has come to this point because they persisted in dragging out an endless series of minor modifications to engines that had seen much better days - in the 70's.
> 
> As for emissions standards, GM is also retrograde, trying to push their "EcoTec" garbage, rather than getting with the program of going LEV and ULEV like all of the other manufacturers long ago did. For the billions and billions that the Governments have doled out to GM, they continue to have a product line that is so retrograde, I doubt that anyone will give up on what they have now.
> 
> ...


right now I think you're just C&P old posts, don't you have anything new to say? when I have time later I'll go trough all that and de-bunk most of it again, oh and where is the proof regarding the Saturns's being sold as rebadged SAAB's?

Laterz


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> I don't think you do as the official company name is GM-Daewoo and it's been that way for at least 5 years now except most people just keep on calling it Daewoo.
> 
> Laterz


It would be better for them to just call it Daewoo, since calling it GM-Daewoo would scare away potential purchasers...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> right now I think you're just C&P old posts, don't you have anything new to say? when I have time later I'll go trough all that and de-bunk most of it again, oh and where is the proof regarding the Saturns's being sold as rebadged SAAB's?


You had never debunked anything. The only thing I am not sure about is if GM stil lmakes the 3.8L V6 or not - if they do, it's a relic from the 60's. As for rebadging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Epsilon_platform

GM would have been better off leaving SAAB to make cool cars for the nutters market, rather than just expensive versions of their regular production trash. It shows, as the market has entirely rejected GM's offerings and shoved it into bankruptcy, and SAAB itself is up for sale, perhaps to be brough by some investors that want to return to that which gave SAAB a certain cache of buyers.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)




----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> As for rebadging: GM Epsilon platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Platform sharing is not the same as rebadging - unless you consider a Lexus RX 400h to be a rebadged Camry...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> Platform sharing is not the same as rebadging - unless you consider a Lexus RX 400h to be a rebadged Camry...


However, GM does have a track record: Cadillac Cimarron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And many others - all made with the least regard to drivability or durability, and using retrograde technology...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> However, GM does have a track record: Cadillac Cimarron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> And many others - all made with the least regard to drivability or durability, and using retrograde technology...


Agreed that the Cimarron represented badge engineering at it's worst, but do you have any more current examples? The last Cimarron rolled off the production line over 20 years ago.

You seem to be a big fan of Hyundai - yet Hyundai products of the '80s were, if anything, even worse than GM products of the same vintage. Anyone remember the Pony and the rather optimistically named Stellar?

Cadillac seems to be making better products these days, for example the CTS-V compares favorably to the BMW M-5 et. al., even according to reviewers that are not normally noted for a pro GM bias:
Review: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V | The Truth About Cars
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article4920262.ece


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> Agreed that the Cimarron represented badge engineering at it's worst, but do you have any more current examples? The last Cimarron rolled off the production line over 20 years ago.
> 
> You seem to be a big fan of Hyundai - yet Hyundai products of the '80s were, if anything, even worse than GM products of the same vintage. Anyone remember the Pony and the rather optimistically named Stellar?
> 
> ...


Ha! Anyone who compares a CTS-V to an M5 knows nothing about cars. An M5 holds its own against 360s and Gallardos and with the right driver can beat a Scaglietti.

The CTS-V is the same crap sports cars the Americans have been shovelling out since the 1948 - big muscle with no handling. How come a SRT-10 Viper cannot beat an BMW Z4 on the track, despite it having more than double the HP?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> Cadillac seems to be making better products these days...


Can't say what the current situation is like, but in the past Cadillac has always had a huge total cost of ownership premium (maintenance & repairs) over most other North American cars. This coming from a guy who used to be a GM partsman in another lifetime. You'd find an engine gasket set in the parts book for a Cadillac, then find one for the same engine in a Chevy & the Caddy set was always more expensive. Lemon-Aid guide always listed the TCO as high for Cadillac, as well.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> Ha! Anyone who compares a CTS-V to an M5 knows nothing about cars. An M5 holds its own against 360s and Gallardos and with the right driver can beat a Scaglietti.


From the Times article I posted:


> So make no mistake: financially, the Cadillac smashes the M5, completely and utterly. And here’s the next part. Round the Nürburgring, it smashes it again. With an ordinary part-time racing driver at the wheel, an automatic version of the hottest ever Caddy went round in 7min 59sec — a record for any four-door saloon.


Keep in mind that Jeremy Clarkson has an Anti American bias, if anything. While you might not always agree with his opinions, it's pretty hard to argue that he knows nothing about cars.



Adrian. said:


> The CTS-V is the same crap sports cars the Americans have been shovelling out since the 1948 - big muscle with no handling. How come a SRT-10 Viper cannot beat an BMW Z4 on the track, despite it having more than double the HP?


Depends what type of track you're talking about. I expect the Z4 might have an edge in Autocross, which favours smaller lighter cars. The Viper would no doubt win on a drag strip. I've no idea which one I'd bet on for the road course - have you got links to any comparisons?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> CThis coming from a guy who used to be a GM partsman in another lifetime. You'd find an engine gasket set in the parts book for a Cadillac, then find one for the same engine in a Chevy & the Caddy set was always more expensive. Lemon-Aid guide always listed the TCO as high for Cadillac, as well.


Too true, we used to buy GMC truck parts for Caddies and they were identical for half the price. Things like an alternator or a tie rod end for example fit perfectly for some years.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Here's to hoping that the Canadian Chevy Cruze gets the Turbo 1.4L!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Can't say what the current situation is like, but in the past Cadillac has always had a huge total cost of ownership premium (maintenance & repairs) over most other North American cars. This coming from a guy who used to be a GM partsman in another lifetime. You'd find an engine gasket set in the parts book for a Cadillac, then find one for the same engine in a Chevy & the Caddy set was always more expensive. Lemon-Aid guide always listed the TCO as high for Cadillac, as well.


TCO is always high for *all* luxury cars.

I've seen examples of identical parts in different boxes at different prices for VW and Audi as well. I'll bet other luxury marques that share components with mass market brands are similar.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> You had never debunked anything. The only thing I am not sure about is if GM stil lmakes the 3.8L V6 or not - if they do, it's a relic from the 60's. As for rebadging: GM Epsilon platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I have debunked allot of what you've said you just have chosen to ignore it, for example recently you completely shot your mouth or keyboard regarding Fiat without actually driving any of there recent products.

GM doesn't make the 3.8 anymore they do make a new 3.6 V6 with direct injection which puts out just over 300hp and is pretty fuel efficient, in a previous post you stated that the 5.7L Chevy small block was from the 60's when in fact production started in 1955 but the engine is still one of the best around and its still being used in competition around the world with allot of success.

That is not rebadging that's platform sharing VW does it(ie: Golf, Jetta, Beetle, Audi A3, Audi TT, Audi A4, Skoda Octavia, all these cars share the same platform), Ford/Mazda do it(ie:Euro Focus, Mazda3, Volvo C30), notice that none of those cars look like the other. Rebadging in my opinion would be more like the Saab 9-2x which was basically a rebadged Subaru Impreza, Suzuki Swift and the Chevy Sprint.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> Ha! Anyone who compares a CTS-V to an M5 knows nothing about cars. An M5 holds its own against 360s and Gallardos and with the right driver can beat a Scaglietti.
> 
> The CTS-V is the same crap sports cars the Americans have been shovelling out since the 1948 - big muscle with no handling. How come a SRT-10 Viper cannot beat an BMW Z4 on the track, despite it having more than double the HP?


From Top Gear Power Laps:

place | time | car

1: 1:17.1 - Gumpert Apollo Se(not on your list)
10: 1:19.5 - Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4
22: 1:22.3 - Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale
50: 1:26.2 - BMW M5
47: 1:26.0 - BMW Z4M
71: 1:28.5 - Dodge Viper SRT-10 (very wet)
113: 1:33.4 - Cadillac CTS-V (very wet)

A very wet lap adds 6 seconds to the lap times so the Viper could do a lap almost as quick as the 360 and CTS-V would come also come close to the M5 and if I remember the review Jeremy and Stig agreed that the suspension could be tuned a bit further and it might be able to match the M5, also the Viper ACR is still the king of the Ring so sometimes having big hp comes in handy. If you know any other examples of all these cars being clocked on the same track please let me know as I have always wondered how they would compare on other race tracks.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

dona83 said:


> Here's to hoping that the Canadian Chevy Cruze gets the Turbo 1.4L!


You and me both, that engine sounds like it will be allot of fun to drive.

Laterz


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

K_OS said:


> ...and CTS-V would come also come close to the M5 and if I remember the review Jeremy and Stig agreed that the suspension could be tuned a bit further and it might be able to match the M5


Were these comments from the review of the previous gen CTS-V?

Jeremy Clarkson was somewhat ambivalent about the first gen CTS-V - he liked its performance and handling, but felt the quality feel was lacking compared to the best European sedans.

YouTube - Top Gear: Jeremy Clarkson Drives a Cadillac CTS V

By all accounts those objections have been addressed with the second gen CTS-V.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> Agreed that the Cimarron represented badge engineering at it's worst, but do you have any more current examples? The last Cimarron rolled off the production line over 20 years ago.


Yes, the Cadillac Catera - the Caddy that zigs...

I'm not sure if I want a car that zigs, but that was at least a little better effort than the Cimarron.



> You seem to be a big fan of Hyundai - yet Hyundai products of the '80s were, if anything, even worse than GM products of the same vintage. Anyone remember the Pony and the rather optimistically named Stellar?


Sure - but that is the point I am making. Hyundai may have been nasty, but the Pony was the cheapest thing on the market next to a Yugo. Terrible little boxes with all kinds of brain damage, and they were indeed a lot worse than anything GM had. However, Hyundai has made constant improvements to their product, and what they have now is nothing like the Pony or Stellar.

At the same time, GM has made little if no actual improvments. They have a scattered product line mostly based on giant truck chassis punctuated by some Korean imports (that are actually pretty good, but very poorly marketed). It wasn't like GM was the king of the mountain in the 80's, they had declined substantially in those years. They simply rested on their laurels, of the classics that they made in the 50's and 60's, and the durability of their trucks in the 40's and 50's. They did well, and shoved Ford out of the dominant position. Fuel efficiency and emissions sideswiped them at the same time they were cranking out some rather clumsy looking vehicles, like the Cutlass Salon. But even with things like the Cimarron, GM was still the king.

GM simply did not make the progress they needed to make. They stayed retrograde, clinging on to obsolete engines, and that strategy worked so long as gas stayed cheap. The price spike in '91 really hit GM hard, and they just never recovered. Their strategy turned from being a powerhouse, to pushing out obsolete vehicles based on truck chassis in order to max out profits, while giving away the entire car market to other makers. They did not make the progress that makers like Hyundai or Kia have made in the same time, nor were they able to compete on a coolness of design level that Chrysler had, or in catering to the speed market like Ford did. And without a real, substantive presence in the car market - they gave all of that away to Toyota and Honda, that ended up ruling the roost with the Corolla/Camry and Civic/Accord, as well as leaving the door open for Hyundai, Kia, and many other makers.

GM's problems weren't so much with technology, because they had the technology. Nor was it anything to do with forgetting how to build cars, because the co-own many plants with other makers, like Toyota at NUMMI, and can easily figure it out. It had nothing to do with workers, because with the rates GM pays, they should be able to hire the cream of the crop.

They just never used what they had. It is a real problem with a corporate mentality that just couldn't make rational decisions. All they thought about was scoring the max profit in any given quarter. No one knew more about electric vehicles than GM - GM is the only maker that had them in the market, where they leased every single vehicle, and had a huge waiting list. They blew it, crushed the cars - and now it's Frank Stronach that is going to carry that torch - for FORD.

No one had engine design and build capabilities like GM. GM owned Detroit Diesel that had years and years of experience and built some of the mightiest engines possible - but they couldn't make a diesel engine for a car that didn't just break down after two months. So instead of fixing the problems - in fact, GM did bring out a much improved block and had made a half million of those units for industrial uses - but never returned to them, handing that market to VW / Audi.

Front wheel drive eluded them, with myriads of problems with bad steering racks, torque steer, etc. By the time they actually got a handle on it, people had already fled elsewhere. It was just like they forgot to actually put the improvements into the cars. It was a mentality that said "oh well, those cars weren't very good - so lets use this new, untested design instead of improving what we had."

This is a trap that GM is in. They are now known for making giant SUVs, in a market that has collapsed; and most people won't even consider a car from them because of some GM turd they drove in the 80's or 90's. If this is really the New GM - they have a lot of work to do, and a few commercials are not going to do it.

At minimum, they need to have a very good FWD sedan with a 1.8L OHC engine - to compete with the Japanese. They need a small commuter car with some kind of 1.5L engine, to compete with the Yaris / Fit / etc. They need to advertise what one can actually buy, not show some Volt product that may or may not be available in five or six years. If they want a niche vehicle, for goodness sake, they can't make some show cars and dazzle people, who want to buy them - and then finally bring them out five years later, after everyone that wanted one got one from Ford or Chrysler. GM also has to stop fooling with speed equipment. If they want to get into speed, they have to do it like Ford SVT or MoPar, where you can go in and order whatever you want. None of this rumours of Stage 4 engines that never appear and are never available.

Worst move for GM was to be half imperial - half metric, simply because that is just an expensive boondoggle for the plants and a royal pain for mechanics. I can work on a Ford without needing fifteen sets of oddball wrenches - GM really doesn't need to do their stunts just to keep Snap-On and Mac Tools in business.



> Cadillac seems to be making better products these days, for example the CTS-V compares favorably to the BMW M-5 et. al., even according to reviewers that are not normally noted for a pro GM bias:


Driving wise, sure - but the BMW just has so much more cache, even though it is the Bavarian Mechanical Wretch. (A friend of mine had one, busted a headlight, cost him $600 - and that was in the 80's!) If the CTS is the best look GM can come up with - they should pay Chrysler to design the look, because it would be pretty wicked. Just don't get Chrysler to build it.

The problem with such comparison is that sure, a Cadillac can entirely blow a BMW off the road, so long as it is dead straight and had no bumps. Once the bad handling and soft road manners come into play, the BMW is a far better performer.

It reminds me of a guy that used to go to my school. He had an old school Mini Cooper, and sure, all of the dudes that had the big Camaros, Chargers, Talledegas and Javelins, could entirely waste him on a big highway. But in the city, they just couldn't compete. You have some giant lumbering Detroit iron vehicle that was fast off the line, with lots of torque - but you had to slow down to 5 MPH in the corners - corners that the Cooper could take at pretty much full bore.

So sure, in a straight line, the Cadillac can probably entirely waste a BMW - but once there is a corner, BMW handling will take over. It was like that with the Grand National, pretty much the fastest thing on the road that wasn't tricked out, but how many times did I get into multiple 360 degree rotations because the rear end loved to come unglued. I beat a lot of other non-exotic cars on straight roads, but the European stuff always clobbered me in the city - even the little Renault 5, which was even closer to the ground than the old school Mini.

As far as GM goes, it is no surprise - they were simply caught with their pants down, making all of their money on giant gas guzzling SUVs when the oil market went insane, and had nothing else to bring out...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> GM simply did not make the progress they needed to make.


Agreed. This one line sums up GM's problems nicely - and I agree with most of the rest of this part of the post.


EvanPitts said:


> The problem with such comparison is that sure, a Cadillac can entirely blow a BMW off the road, so long as it is dead straight and had no bumps. Once the bad handling and soft road manners come into play, the BMW is a far better performer.


That doesn't appear to be true any longer - by all accounts the latest CTS-V is faster than the M5 et. al. both in a straight line and around the Nürburgring. Fit and finish seems to be right up there too.

It's too early to get an idea of what the reliability of this thing will be like, and it's unlikely they'll ever make enough of them to get reliable stats, but at least the Germans have set the reliability bar nice and low so it should be easy for the Caddy to at least be class competitive.

My point is GM had the resources to make a world class vehicle, and it looks like they might finally have done so. It's not just Corvettes and Cadillacs either - the new Malibu looks like a worthy competitor to the Camry / Accord / Altima too.

Of course a product led revival takes time after 35 years of substandard products and gross mismanagement - so this might be too little, too late...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> My point is GM had the resources to make a world class vehicle, and it looks like they might finally have done so. It's not just Corvettes and Cadillacs either - the new Malibu looks like a worthy competitor to the Camry / Accord / Altima too.


The bitch of it is, I'm in no way going to believe all the crapola marketing coming from the General (or JD Powers, for that matter) on how wonderful their new vehicles are. Maybe the new Malibu is the best thing since sliced bread. I don't know. Colour me a sceptic but I'll believe it when I get a good review on a 2009 model from Lemon-Aid 3-5 years from now. There is just far to much history here to take them at face value.

At that point, and only then, they will have proven themselves and will be worthy of consideration. Until then, sorry, it's just so much BS.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

FeXL said:


> The bitch of it is, I'm in no way going to believe all the crapola marketing coming from the General (or JD Powers, for that matter) on how wonderful their new vehicles are. Maybe the new Malibu is the best thing since sliced bread. I don't know. Colour me a sceptic but I'll believe it when I get a good review on a 2009 model from Lemon-Aid 3-5 years from now. There is just far to much history here to take them at face value.
> 
> At that point, and only then, they will have proven themselves and will be worthy of consideration. Until then, sorry, it's just so much BS.


That is the entire point - that GM does have to make some real progress, not just jazzing up the advertisements. They try to make it so that the Malibu is "competitive" with the Camry / Accord, but a Malibu is larger and more bulbous on the outside- and what was with the Malibu MAXX (the Cutlass Salon of the '07).

GM had a huge following of loyal followers - and one by one they left. GM has one massive job trying to get any of them back, since the competition really isn't making crud. Half the people I know had GM's rs we had were GMs, but one by one, people defected to other vehicles for a variety of reasons, and have been happy with the move and are probably not moving back.

If GM thinks they can come out with some snazzy ads and cut a few brands - they are wrong, they need to do all of those things they needed to do twenty years ago or more.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> My point is GM had the resources to make a world class vehicle, and it looks like they might finally have done so. It's not just Corvettes and Cadillacs either - the new Malibu looks like a worthy competitor to the Camry / Accord / Altima too..


The new Malibu is above and beyond a better looking car on the outside and inside and it is also built at GM's plant in Oshawa which JD Power called one of the best GM plants in NA and on par with transplant plants from Honda and Toyota.



> Sure - but that is the point I am making. Hyundai may have been nasty, but the Pony was the cheapest thing on the market next to a Yugo. Terrible little boxes with all kinds of brain damage, and they were indeed a lot worse than anything GM had. However, Hyundai has made constant improvements to their product, and what they have now is nothing like the Pony or Stellar.


No question about Hyundai except that they used to make some very exciting looking cars and then went on a quality control fetish to chase Toyota and started to produce cars on par in quality with the Japanese only to look just as boring as there Japanese competition, by the looks of it tough times are changing at Hyundai again with the recent release of the Hyundai Genesis.

Laterz


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

FeXL said:


> The bitch of it is, I'm in no way going to believe all the crapola marketing coming from the General (or JD Powers, for that matter) on how wonderful their new vehicles are. Maybe the new Malibu is the best thing since sliced bread. I don't know. Colour me a sceptic but I'll believe it when I get a good review on a 2009 model from Lemon-Aid 3-5 years from now. There is just far to much history here to take them at face value.
> 
> At that point, and only then, they will have proven themselves and will be worthy of consideration. Until then, sorry, it's just so much BS.


Agreed. A product led revival takes time that GM no longer has - if they started down this path in the late '90s when they were flush with profits from trucks, they might have had a chance.

I'm not a big fan of Phil Edmonston or his books, but there is at least some credible evidence that the new Malibu has decent reliability (for example here:Chevrolet Malibu Reliability, Price Comparisons, Invoice Comparisons, and Specifications).

The problem is they would need to keep this up across their product line for 5-10 years, and make sure dealers look after their customers, to get a decent reputation.



EvanPitts said:


> GM had a huge following of loyal followers - and one by one they left. GM has one massive job trying to get any of them back, since the competition really isn't making crud. Half the people I know had GM's rs we had were GMs, but one by one, people defected to other vehicles for a variety of reasons, and have been happy with the move and are probably not moving back.


This is a huge problem for all the domestic brands - it is easier to win a new customer than it is to win back a customer you have p!ssed off in the past.

For the record, I've never actually owned a GM product (although I did drive one for many years - details in the second part of my post here: http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/76822-any-chevy-cobalt-owners.html#post828738). Come to think of it, I never bought *any* domestic vehicles between 1983 and 2006...


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

Any comments on Magna's announcement with Ford that they will have electric vehicles in showrooms inside of three years? What truly knocked me for a loop was that the sample they showed on the TV segment was a Ford Focus - and not a glorified bicycle-on-a-battery-approach! ;-)

The Focus has only now changed from a pregnant rollerskate crate to somewhat of a neat little coupe, though truly a shame the hatch is no more. I could see it making a return if this new venture does truly happen.

Major major kudos to Stronach for moving in this direction!!! :clap: :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

YOu mean full EVs?? or PHEV hybrids..... that story was a round for a while. Ford has done quite well with hybrids so far and the Fusion Hybrid for 2010 looks to be a category killer.


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

I believe they're talking full EVs... will check the article again. Ack!! Just realized I didn't include the article link in my previous post, too busy putting the picture in...

CTV.ca | Stronach has plan to build electric cars in Canada

The beauty is, regardless if it's a Focus, it is at least not a bubble car thingumybob... it's a real, actual, practical vehicle. Just wish they had one right now because I have a week to go on my current lease and still not 100% sure what I am getting, still negotiating!


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> Were these comments from the review of the previous gen CTS-V?
> 
> Jeremy Clarkson was somewhat ambivalent about the first gen CTS-V - he liked its performance and handling, but felt the quality feel was lacking compared to the best European sedans.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure it was the 1st gen CTS-V and yes Jeremy wasn't too impressed with the car's quality as a whole but the price was right and the performance was also a bonus and apparently he even convinced the Stig to buy one.

Laterz


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

K_OS said:


> I'm pretty sure it was the 1st gen CTS-V and yes Jeremy wasn't too impressed with the car's quality as a whole but the price was right and the performance was also a bonus and apparently he even convinced the Stig to buy one.
> 
> Laterz


I'm pretty sure the Stig got the second gen, which addressed most of JC's complaints about perceived quality...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
That is another big GM problem - when the first generation sucks, so everyone ignores the second generation, which may or may not be better. In this day and age, people want the goods, it's all about immediate gratification. They don't want to have to wait five years for an announced product to see the light of day, and then find out it is a piece of garbage that fails to impress, and then have to wait another three or four years for a successor, which though it may be more impressive, is 8 or 9 years overdue.

Just like the problem that they had with the Chevy SSR. They showed it off, people thought it was cool, people wanted to purchase - five years later, everyone that wanted one settled for a Ford SVT Lightning, which may not be quite as cool but is entirely available, leaving no buyers left over.

Same with the Chevy Volt. They advertise it now, but it won't be available for many years, and if you read the fine print on their ad, may never be available. Now Ford has the EV Focus, which may look more conventional, but will beat the Volt to the market simply because it is buildable right now.

Other things include FlexFuel vehicles (gas / ethanol), which were developed by GM for the Brazilian market. So now we have Ethanol plants, and Ethanol fuel is available in some areas (like at FS Stations in Ontario) - who is in the market first? It's not GM, but rather, Chrysler.

It's not like GM was retrograde - GM had practical EV cars that people wanted, and some were even driving them, but GM never carried the football, leaving it to Ford/Magna to actually do it - and FlexFuel is a GM baby, and has proven designs that are practical and reliable in Brazil, but they forget about that and basically give that market over to Chrysler. Same with Hybrids. It's not like Toyota is some space alien corporation. GM and Toyota have over twenty years of shared manufacturing at plants like New Union, and when Hybrids find a market, GM is off being fixated on giant SUVs loaded with geegaws. As if GM has never taken someone elses product and rebadged it? All of this stuff is simple, but entirely escaped the corporate mind of GM...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Same with the Chevy Volt. They advertise it now, but it won't be available for many years, and if you read the fine print on their ad, may never be available. Now Ford has the EV Focus, which may look more conventional, but will beat the Volt to the market simply because it is buildable right now.


The only problem is that Ford Focus that Frank unveiled was only a test mule and since he now owns Opel I doubt that he will let that technology to be used in some other company's car first.

Laterz


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> How come a SRT-10 Viper cannot beat an BMW Z4 on the track, despite it having more than double the HP?


I guess I never realised quite how fast the Z4 is.

Road & Track found that even a base Viper is quicker around Willow Springs than a Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera or a Porsche 911 GT3 RS, and the Viper ACR kicks it up a notch further.

LAP TIMES:
SRT10 ACR: 1:29.33 sec
SRT10: 1:32.19 sec
Superleggera: 1:32.47 sec
GT3 RS: 1:33.14 sec

The Z4 must have quite the suspension to beat all of these with significantly less power. Your results must be for a Z4 with the "M-Sport" package...

sources:
RoadandTrack.com -- Comparison Tests - Evil Twins: Dodge Viper SRT10 vs. SRT10 ACR (4/2008)
RoadandTrack.com -- Comparison Tests - Evil Twins: Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder vs. Superleggera (4/2008)
RoadandTrack.com -- Comparison Tests - Evil Twins: Porsche 911 Carrera S vs. GT3 RS (4/2008)


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

American muscle is made for drag races, not track racing.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

dona83 said:


> American muscle is made for drag races, not track racing.


The comparisons I posted were run on a road course, according to the R&T articles: ::::Willow Springs Raceway::::

Your statement would have been correct in the past, but these days there are American cars that handle well, and European cars that can accelerate in a straight line.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> The only problem is that Ford Focus that Frank unveiled was only a test mule and since he now owns Opel I doubt that he will let that technology to be used in some other company's car first.


Magna doesn't operate that way. They are first and foremost parts and systems suppliers. Magna supplies to pretty much all car companies, in one way or another, from entire interiors for Chrysler, to you name it, they do it for everyone else. Even if he owns a chunk of Opel, it does not mean that he won't sell to Ford or anyone else who will pony up with the dollars.

Besides, Opel is working with some fairly retrograde designs, so updating them to modern levels of technology will take some time; while something like the Focus is completely modern and pretty much ready to go with an EV powerplant. For Frank, it's all about dollars, and if Ford or whoever had dollars, he will sell to them, no problems.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> The comparisons I posted were run on a road course, according to the R&T articles: ::::Willow Springs Raceway::::
> 
> Your statement would have been correct in the past, but these days there are American cars that handle well, and European cars that can accelerate in a straight line.


The Viper ACR is the king(for the time being) of the Nurburgring so it's got power and handling where it counts.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Magna doesn't operate that way. They are first and foremost parts and systems suppliers. Magna supplies to pretty much all car companies, in one way or another, from entire interiors for Chrysler, to you name it, they do it for everyone else. Even if he owns a chunk of Opel, it does not mean that he won't sell to Ford or anyone else who will pony up with the dollars.


You keep thinking that Frank isn't stupid and Opel from now on will get 1st dibs on any technology that Magna develops unless there were contracts drawn up and signed before Magna takes control of Opel.

Laterz


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> You keep thinking that Frank isn't stupid and Opel from now on will get 1st dibs on any technology that Magna develops unless there were contracts drawn up and signed before Magna takes control of Opel.
> 
> Laterz


I think the proof that Frank isn't stupid is readily apparent - seeing that he is scoring large cash and has ample reserves; while his clients, GM and Chrysler, are both in Chapter 11. Again, Magna is going with Ford first, because he wants to do more business with Ford (Out of the Big 3, Ford sources the least number of parts from Magna owned companies), and because the Focus chassis is entirely modernized and pretty much ready for the Magna unit. This is far different from Chrysler, which does not have a small sedan on the market at this time; and GM, which has retrograde designs that are not ready for such a powertrain, though they have the possibility of doing it on a Daewoo chassis.

Magna doesn't care who he is selling parts for. He is not out saluting some corporate flag or picking sides - he is all about doing business. I am sure that if the Magna EV was ready to go, and GM had a modern chassis to plop it into - he'd be all about that, but for now, Ford has the best chassis for the task, and really, people are really waiting for the EuroSpec Focus to hit the market here, and it will be accepted.

On another note, I saw a new GM that I had never seen before. I don't know if it is a production model or what, but it was called a Chevrolet Colonial, and kind of looked like a Corolla but with added lower body fairings, a different front nose, and a rather tall back hatch (like of like a Kamm tail). I followed it yesterday for some time, and really, if it has good quality, and is available with an 1.8L LEV or ULEV engine - they should be selling it. They might come up with a better name than "Colonial" - sounds like a model of Conestoga Wagon - but at least it is something. I wonder if it a Chevy'd Corolla, something that would fill a major gap in GM's lineup?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> The comparisons I posted were run on a road course, according to the R&T articles: ::::Willow Springs Raceway::::
> 
> Your statement would have been correct in the past, but these days there are American cars that handle well, and European cars that can accelerate in a straight line.


The results depend on which course at Willows they were run on:










I've never seen the ACR in action. Perhaps, they have made pigs fly. The Viper is a HUGE car.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> The results depend on which course at Willows they were run on:


The article talks about "the big track", so I'm guessing it's this one: The Streets of Willow Springs



Adrian. said:


> I've never seen the ACR in action. Perhaps, they have made pigs fly. The Viper is a HUGE car.


Agreed that the Viper is a big wide car - hardly ideal for Autocross. Cars like Miatas or even old Civics and Neons make more sense there...


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

As for the gm chapter 11 stuff (sorry if already discussed):

As GM continues to remove brands including those with strong sales, GM will continue to offer consumers less choices under the GM brand, people will go elsewhere.

Also, as probably already discussed, closing dearlships does not actually help GM to necessarily do better, it is more likely going to hurt them. I thought this way, but wasn't really sure until I was watching autolone Detroit and their panel shared the same opinion.... How dumb GM.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I was reading that Roger Penske is buying Saturn up, mostly for the dealer network that has long ranked high when it comes to customer satisfaction. Saturn was innovative at the beginning, built a following, sold everything they were making - but then GM went stupid and cabbaged it. I think he could really do something with it, as he states he is open to any number of strategic alliances. Maybe this would be an in to something like a Citroen or Renault, which has no dealer network here, or maybe something like a Skoda, or a deal with whoever buys out Saab...

I think Saturn is such a sad case when it comes to GM - because in the beginning, they seemed to have an idea of what to do, but then forgot all about it, and let it wither as they gorged themselves on the fat profits of gas guzzling SUVs...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Analysis from The Economist




> *The decline and fall of General Motors
> Detroitosaurus wrecks*
> 
> 
> ...


more
The decline and fall of General Motors: Detroitosaurus wrecks | The Economist


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

^^^^^
Just reading the article now.

Interesting that the nose of the dino in the illustration seems to be the front clip from a ~Ford~ truck...


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

I thought that too, but I guess the illustrator didn't want the Detroitosaurus to look even uglier! ;-)


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> I was reading that Roger Penske is buying Saturn up, mostly for the dealer network that has long ranked high when it comes to customer satisfaction. Saturn was innovative at the beginning, built a following, sold everything they were making - but then GM went stupid and cabbaged it. I think he could really do something with it, as he states he is open to any number of strategic alliances. Maybe this would be an in to something like a Citroen or Renault, which has no dealer network here, or maybe something like a Skoda, or a deal with whoever buys out Saab...


and why would Renault and Skoda need dealers over here? Renault owns Nissan and trough the Nissan dealer network Renault wouldn't have a problem selling there cars here they would just have to find a way not to compete with Nissan as allot of there models share the same demographics for customers and the same price point and features, as for Skoda you will never see them in NA they would compete for the same customers as there corporate owner VW. What I see happening is the status quo as Opel under there sales terms with Magna can't sell Opel's in NA and that would leave Saturn to keep on re-badging Opel's and selling them as Saturn's.

Laterz


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

K_OS said:


> ...Renault wouldn't have a problem selling there cars here...


I'm not sure about that, since:

1) North American tastes are, on average, different. European cars are a bit of a niche product over here, and there are already a number of marques serving that niche.

2) French cars are among the worst of the worst for reliability - so getting reliability obsessed North American customers to accept a quirky high maintenance French car would be a challenge.


> Renault
> 29th of 30
> Last year's position 25th of 26
> Cars needing repair work 44%
> ...


source: Reliability Supertest 2008 - Porsche - Seat - Car and Car-Buying News - What Car?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> and why would Renault and Skoda need dealers over here?


Penske could have certain models of, and I used it for example, Citroen, Renault, Skoda - or whatever maker, have then rebadged as Saturn, and sell those products through the already existing Saturn dealer network which he is attempting to acquire. Whether or not Renault is reliable is not so much a factor - because of reliability was ever a prime factor in selecting a car, then no one would drop cash on a Jaguar, and Chrysler wouldn't have been able to shove even one Neon off their lot.

People buy cars for many different reasons. People want cars that are different, and perhaps something like a Citroen Xsara or a Skoda Octavia would find a following - but since these companies do not have any dealers in North America, no one will ever find out.

There are many partnerships within the automotive industry. To say it would be a bad idea to import a Skoda because it would "compete" against VW is entirely silly, since VW obviously continues to make Skoda in their own home market, where they sell the bulk of their vehicles, and seem not to have a problem with that. 



> Renault owns Nissan and trough the Nissan dealer network Renault wouldn't have a problem selling there cars here they would just have to find a way not to compete with Nissan as allot of there models share the same demographics for customers and the same price point and features...


Then why did Ford persist in marketing their products as Ford or Mercury - which were pretty much the same cars that plugged into the same demographic? Same with the multitude of virtually identical cars that were Dodge / Plymouth, Chevy / Pontiac, Olsmobile / Buick or Chevy / GMC? And not only that, people actually fight over what was "better".

I think a company like Renault could easily plug into the market, especially in the gaps in the offerings of the Big 3, like sub-compacts intended for urban area commuters. This is a market that VW has avoided as well, and since they have never tried selling the Polo here, who knows if it would sell or not. They haven't really tried the Smart in the US yet - and I think it will be a big seller. I think Penske could really have something, especially in large urban markets like LA, Frisco, NYC, Philly and other places - places that have been ignored.

If he is dropping major money on such a venture, then there has to be something - because if he returned to making a basic sedan like the Saturn originally was - it would find a ready market since makers like Chrysler and GM do not have any products in this market, and would only have to contend with the Fusion in the domestic market. But it could be an opening to bring Opels over here - something that GM long toyed with (even back in the early 70's when they had the Opel GT) - but never really followed through; just like they never followed through with Isuzu...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I thought Mercury was a bit more upscale than Ford, but not quite Lincoln.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mercury was definitely upscale from Ford and was gradually phased out.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Mercury was definitely upscale from Ford and was gradually phased out.


...In _Canada_. The brand is still alive in the U.S.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

At least here. It's weird seeing new Mercury vehicles whenever I'm down in the US!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Yea, it's weird seeing new Mercury vehicles whenever I'm down in the US! I wouldn't mind the Mercury Milan 4 cylinder with 6 speed manual!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Supreme Court threw a wrench into the plans to have a quick bankruptcy process at Chrysler LLC, delaying the company's combination with Italian automaker Fiat.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Concept was you had the Joe lunch bucket Ford and Ford truck dealer for rural.

Mercury Lincoln for the townies with some cross over in the middle models.

Not sure where they are going with this now.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

K_OS said:


> What I see happening is the status quo as Opel under there sales terms with Magna can't sell Opel's in NA and that would leave Saturn to keep on re-badging Opel's and selling them as Saturn's.


I was listening to an interview with Frank Stronach last week, and he seems to think there are plenty enough loopholes in the agreement that making and/or selling Opels in Canada would be feasible.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Mercury was definitely upscale from Ford...


50+ years ago Mercury would have been an "Entry Luxury" brand that was attainable by middle class customers. It would have been kind of like Acura is to Honda today - a few unique models, and many models that are the closely based on the lower priced brand but with a higher level of trim.

A Lincoln of this era would have been something special - so they wouldn't sell that many of them. A Lincoln Continental would have been 4 or 5 times the price of a run of the mill Ford, and would have been hand built with many unique features.

Before Lincolns (and Cadillacs and Chryslers, for that matter...) were cost reduced in pursuit of higher sales volumes, it made some sense to have separate mid priced brands.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
However, GM turned the clock back, cabbaging their sales by turning many of their luxury cars into reheats of much lesser vehicles. In the day, it was not to say a Chevy was a bad thing, but it was certainly not a Cadillac. The makers simply forgot that a luxury vehicle has to be differentiated by something more than a few gee-gaws, and they blew it, because if one had cash and wanted luxury, there is a hoard of foreign makes that will gladly provide it.

A Lincoln Continental was something, in the day - by the mid 90's it was nothing more than a slightly longer Taurus with a squared off back window, and a host of gee-gaws that were prone to break or malfunction. A Cadillac used to be something, a giant land yacht, but then they went all plastic, and what was with the crazy rhombus styling of the CTS? I think they scared a lot of people away - who could find what they wanted in a Benz, BMW, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti, or whatever. Not to say they didn't take a stab at it, but thirty years of producing inferior, retrograde products took a toll on their reputation.

GM does have some snazzy new commercials, which considering that the ads entirely put down all of the products they made prior to "New GM", should do wonders for the resale values. Maybe a GM will net even more depreciation than a Chrysler...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
However, GM turned the clock back, cabbaging their sales by turning many of their luxury cars into reheats of much lesser vehicles. In the day, it was not to say a Chevy was a bad thing, but it was certainly not a Cadillac. The makers simply forgot that a luxury vehicle has to be differentiated by something more than a few gee-gaws, and they blew it, because if one had cash and wanted luxury, there is a hoard of foreign makes that will gladly provide it.

A Lincoln Continental was something, in the day - by the mid 90's it was nothing more than a slightly longer Taurus with a squared off back window, and a host of gee-gaws that were prone to break or malfunction. A Cadillac used to be something, a giant land yacht, but then they went all plastic, and what was with the crazy rhombus styling of the CTS? I think they scared a lot of people away - who could find what they wanted in a Benz, BMW, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti, or whatever. Not to say they didn't take a stab at it, but thirty years of producing inferior, retrograde products took a toll on their reputation.

GM does have some snazzy new commercials, which considering that the ads entirely put down all of the products they made prior to "New GM", should do wonders for the resale values. Maybe a GM will net even more depreciation than a Chrysler...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

bsenka said:


> I was listening to an interview with Frank Stronach last week, and he seems to think there are plenty enough loopholes in the agreement that making and/or selling Opels in Canada would be feasible.


I hope so as the Astra needs to be sold here for a fair price comparable to the Hyundai Elantra Touring, Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic because in Europe it sells for roughly the same and it's a top seller against similar competition.

Laterz


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Sorry if this has ben posted already - thought that that was an interesting comparison.
Largest Bankruptcies


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I thought the Astra was going against the VW Golf/Rabbit, not the Japanese or domestic competition.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

*deleted*


----------

