Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/20/2008 6:36:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 6:38:29 AM EDT by WildBoar]
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/20/lkl.michael.moore/index.html


Moore: Well, what really went wrong is that General Motors has had this philosophy from the beginning that what's good for General Motors is good for the country. So, their attitude was we'll build it and you buy it. We'll tell you what to buy. You just buy it.

Eventually, the consumer got smart and said, 'You know what, I'd like a car that gets a little better gas mileage. I'd like a car that's safer on the road,' so they started to buy other cars. General Motors still wouldn't change. They still kept building the wrong cars, and more and more people stopped buying them.


of course the rest of his ideas in that article are libtarded as usual.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:39:58 AM EDT
does all this B.S. sound too much like Chrysler back in the 70's? guess they have yet to learn from their mistakes.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:41:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 6:44:15 AM EDT by hotbiggun42]
Micheal Moore is a retard.

GM goes down = UAW goes down  = Dems loose millions in campaign donations.

There will be a bailout under Obama .he has been bought and paid for.

GM does and always have made cars people love .the most popular cars ever made have been GM .

Their Problems started long before this current oil crisis.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:41:59 AM EDT
A broken clock...

That and the fuggin' UAW.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:42:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PUBBOY:
A broken clock...

That and the fuggin' UAW.


Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:44:47 AM EDT
Maher (spit) called for Chapter 11 for the industry, with restructuring.

This after I told my wife that I would never agree with anything that comes out of that mans mouth.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:00:25 AM EDT
I didn't think it was possible, but I think that man is actually getting fatter.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:02:28 AM EDT
It will be very interesting to see what happens.  I can't imagine that the government would let these manufacturers go in the toilet.  It would result in too many jobs lost in an already down economy.  The question is, when, how much and from where will the money come?  

I'm reading that the auto industry will have another chance to plead their case in December and that GM may last until then with their dwindling cash reserve.  

I wish I had money to invest in Ford or GM in the coming weeks.  Their stock is abysmal at the moment.  GM, $52 a share down to $3 a share in 5 years.  If they get bailed out and it rebounds in the next 5 years, a lot of people are going to make a lot of money.  An insane amount of money.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:04:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 7:04:41 AM EDT by Torf]
GM builds what the consumer wants.  Problem is, they aren't very good at making smaller cars, or else people who buy smaller cars don't consider GM to be a viable option.

So, Moore is wrong, as usual.

The last thing we need is a UAW bailout.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:06:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dreban:

snip

I wish I had money to invest in Ford or GM in the coming weeks.  Their stock is abysmal at the moment.  GM, $52 a share down to $3 a share in 5 years.  If they get bailed out and it rebounds in the next 5 years, a lot of people are going to make a lot of money.  An insane amount of money.





Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:10:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Torf:
GM builds what the consumer wants.  Problem is, they aren't very good at making smaller cars, or else people who buy smaller cars don't consider GM to be a viable option.

So, Moore is wrong, as usual.

The last thing we need is a UAW bailout.


Yep Moore is full of shit as usual… and because of the UAW GM is not a viable option because GM cannot build a small or mid-size affordable car in the US and make a profit doing so.

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:11:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dreban:
I wish I had money to invest in Ford or GM in the coming weeks.  Their stock is abysmal at the moment.  GM, $52 a share down to $3 a share in 5 years.  If they get bailed out and it rebounds in the next 5 years, a lot of people are going to make a lot of money.  An insane amount of money.


Shush........

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:12:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dreban:
It will be very interesting to see what happens.  I can't imagine that the government would let these manufacturers go in the toilet.  It would result in too many jobs lost in an already down economy.  The question is, when, how much and from where will the money come?  

I'm reading that the auto industry will have another chance to plead their case in December and that GM may last until then with their dwindling cash reserve.  

I wish I had money to invest in Ford or GM in the coming weeks.  Their stock is abysmal at the moment.  GM, $52 a share down to $3 a share in 5 years.  If they get bailed out and it rebounds in the next 5 years, a lot of people are going to make a lot of money.  An insane amount of money.



Any Bailout of the Auto industry would only be temporary. If they could not make it in this huge economy we have had in the last 20 yrs .what makes you think they will make it when no one can afford their vehicles.

It is time for them to sink or swim It is the American way.it is what made America great.
you forget it is not the Auto industry that need's bailed out it is the big 3.if they dissapear  the remaining comapanies with factories in the US will absorb many of theses misplaced workers.

Personally i wouldnt pay $3 bucks a share for penny stocks.





Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:17:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:17:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By bigcraig:
Originally Posted By Dreban:
I wish I had money to invest in Ford or GM in the coming weeks.  Their stock is abysmal at the moment.  GM, $52 a share down to $3 a share in 5 years.  If they get bailed out and it rebounds in the next 5 years, a lot of people are going to make a lot of money.  An insane amount of money.


Shush........



Sorry.  I don't think that any bailout is going to place GM back on the path to profits, good money after bad and all that.  Yeah you might make a little money if the bailouts happen, BUT, I believe that the bailout has already been partially factored in to the price, and investors know that GM will remain unprofitable as long as they operate in their current form.

Go invest in a good company that has been beaten down unfairly instead.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:17:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Loopy:
does all this B.S. sound too much like Chrysler back in the 70's? guess they have yet to learn from their mistakes.


The big 3 were having similar problems in the late 70's... struggling to keep up with massive new government regulations.  Remember Chrysler's "lean burn" failure?  Corvettes with less than 150 HP?  Detroit didn't *want* to sell a Corvette that was outclassed by some lawn equipment, and consumers didn't *want* to buy it.

If Washington would butt out, problems would work themselves out.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:26:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 7:29:07 AM EDT by Max_Mike]
Originally Posted By bigcraig:
Originally Posted By Dreban:
I wish I had money to invest in Ford or GM in the coming weeks.  Their stock is abysmal at the moment.  GM, $52 a share down to $3 a share in 5 years.  If they get bailed out and it rebounds in the next 5 years, a lot of people are going to make a lot of money.  An insane amount of money.


Shush........



That is a fools bet if GM does not change.

GM or Ford will not make a profit nor even survive long term if they are bailed out now. Until there is a major restructuring in management and labor they are not able to survive.

It is pretty clear that if you watched those hearings none of the auto company people had a plan the UAW talked about the past and offered nothing and we are expected to give them an addition $25 billion when we know they are coming back for more in the spring  and they still will not have a plan... to hell with that.

Bankruptcy is their only hope to survive.  When they file bankruptcy get out from under those union contract, are able to shed worthless leases on property and closed plants, restructure management, etc. and actually have a plan to survive then they can ask for money.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:27:08 AM EDT
GM makes some good small/mid cars.

Toyota buys Cavaliers, slaps their name on them, and sells them in Japan. An Isuzu pickup is really a Chevy S-10.

Seriously, the idea that they don't make the vehicles people want is not supported at all by sales data.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:29:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 7:30:55 AM EDT by Matthew_Q]
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:


GM does and always have made cars people love .the most popular cars ever made have been GM .



If you're talking about classics.  Modern/late model cars, the Camry is one of the top selling people movers.  GM is playing catch up.  The new Malibu is nice...

Imports likely sell more 'common' type cars.  Corvettes and Camaros, while flashy and 'popular' don't sell in numbers close to plain jane sedans.  

GM was not smart because of it's reliance on large inefficient vehicles as cash cows, without preparing for the eventuality that gas prices would climb.  When gas prices skyrocketed, GM was caught with it's pants down.  

They do have a potential ace in the hole with the Volt.  Lutz knew GM needed something like it, and the time came to start development.   The only hurdle now is the final price.  At <$30k, the Volt could supplant the Prius as the 'green' car of choice.  At >$30k, probably not so much.  

Anyway, GM has not been flexible and innovative until very recently.  It may be too late.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:32:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 7:37:04 AM EDT by Max_Mike]
Originally Posted By wingnutx:
GM makes some good small/mid cars.

Toyota buys Cavaliers, slaps their name on them, and sells them in Japan. An Isuzu pickup is really a Chevy S-10.

Seriously, the idea that they don't make the vehicles people want is not supported at all by sales data.


GM does not make the vehicles people want and make enough money on those vehicles to survive in current form… that is a fact supported by their bottom line.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:34:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:


GM does and always have made cars people love .the most popular cars ever made have been GM .



If you're talking about classics.  Modern/late model cars, the Camry is one of the top selling people movers.  GM is playing catch up.  The new Malibu is nice...

Imports likely sell more 'common' type cars.  Corvettes and Camaros, while flashy and 'popular' don't sell in numbers close to plain jane sedans.  

GM was not smart because of it's reliance on large inefficient vehicles as cash cows, without preparing for the eventuality that gas prices would climb.  When gas prices skyrocketed, GM was caught with it's pants down.  

They do have a potential ace in the hole with the Volt.  Lutz knew GM needed something like it, and the time came to start development.   The only hurdle now is the final price.  At <$30k, the Volt could supplant the Prius as the 'green' car of choice.  At >$30k, probably not so much.  

Anyway, GM has not been flexible and innovative until very recently.  It may be too late.


And at sub-$2/gal for gas, the 'market' for the Volt will be...

Hollywood celebs & enviro-crusader politicians...

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:34:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wingnutx:
GM makes some good small/mid cars.

Toyota buys Cavaliers, slaps their name on them, and sells them in Japan. An Isuzu pickup is really a Chevy S-10.

Seriously, the idea that they don't make the vehicles people want is not supported at all by sales data.


Apparently people who are buying them aren't willing to pay a high enough price to offset all the ridiculous costs going into each vehicle.  They can't effectively compete on small cars period.  Sure, they make them (because they HAVE to) and they sell them (at a loss), but the vehicles that people really are willing to buy at a premium and in large numbers, are the SUV's and trucks.  GM makes those too, because people want them.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:35:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wingnutx:
GM makes some good small/mid cars.

Toyota buys Cavaliers, slaps their name on them, and sells them in Japan. An Isuzu pickup is really a Chevy S-10.

Seriously, the idea that they don't make the vehicles people want is not supported at all by sales data.


You've kind of got that backwards on Toyota...

For many years, GM was selling a Toyota Corolla as an 'American' car...

They do the same today with the Matrix (Pontiac Vibe)....

Izusu is a GM brand (As is SAAB)...

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:36:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Originally Posted By wingnutx:
GM makes some good small/mid cars.

Toyota buys Cavaliers, slaps their name on them, and sells them in Japan. An Isuzu pickup is really a Chevy S-10.

Seriously, the idea that they don't make the vehicles people want is not supported at all by sales data.


GM does not the vehicles people want and make enough money on those vehicles to survive in current form… that is a fact supported by their bottom line.


That has more to do with overhead and efficiency than the merits of the actual vehicles.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:37:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:


GM does and always have made cars people love .the most popular cars ever made have been GM .



If you're talking about classics.  Modern/late model cars, the Camry is one of the top selling people movers.  GM is playing catch up.  The new Malibu is nice...

Imports likely sell more 'common' type cars.  Corvettes and Camaros, while flashy and 'popular' don't sell in numbers close to plain jane sedans.  

GM was not smart because of it's reliance on large inefficient vehicles as cash cows, without preparing for the eventuality that gas prices would climb.  When gas prices skyrocketed, GM was caught with it's pants down.  

They do have a potential ace in the hole with the Volt.  Lutz knew GM needed something like it, and the time came to start development.   The only hurdle now is the final price.  At <$30k, the Volt could supplant the Prius as the 'green' car of choice.  At >$30k, probably not so much.  

Anyway, GM has not been flexible and innovative until very recently.  It may be too late.


Who the hell is going to buy a Volt at $30k when gas costs $1.75 a gallon?

Sorry, but the Volt is a niche vehicle.  It is great when gas jumps 250%, but...
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:38:27 AM EDT
Toyota no longer sells the cavalier in Japan, but they did for about 5 years. link
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:41:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 7:43:44 AM EDT by Max_Mike]
Originally Posted By wingnutx:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Originally Posted By wingnutx:
GM makes some good small/mid cars.

Toyota buys Cavaliers, slaps their name on them, and sells them in Japan. An Isuzu pickup is really a Chevy S-10.

Seriously, the idea that they don't make the vehicles people want is not supported at all by sales data.


GM does not the vehicles people want and make enough money on those vehicles to survive in current form… that is a fact supported by their bottom line.


That has more to do with overhead and efficiency than the merits of the actual vehicles.


Well yea... and you cannot survive doing that. You can make the best car in the market but if you cannot sell it at a profit you cannot survive.

Until there is major restructuring at GM and labor cost are cut by one third they cannot make a profit on those cars…. That is not going to happen without bankruptcy.


Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:43:31 AM EDT
He's partly right.  GM did build cars that people didn't want.  However the Unions didn't help.  Even if the car wasn't what people wanted, but cost 4-5k less, people might still buy it.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:44:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By wingnutx:
GM makes some good small/mid cars.

Toyota buys Cavaliers, slaps their name on them, and sells them in Japan. An Isuzu pickup is really a Chevy S-10.

Seriously, the idea that they don't make the vehicles people want is not supported at all by sales data.


You've kind of got that backwards on Toyota...

For many years, GM was selling a Toyota Corolla as an 'American' car...

They do the same today with the Matrix (Pontiac Vibe)....

Izusu is a GM brand (As is SAAB)...



No he is correct. Toyota did sell rebadged cavaliers in japan under their banner. Selling well was another matter though.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:46:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Torf:
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:


GM does and always have made cars people love .the most popular cars ever made have been GM .



If you're talking about classics.  Modern/late model cars, the Camry is one of the top selling people movers.  GM is playing catch up.  The new Malibu is nice...

Imports likely sell more 'common' type cars.  Corvettes and Camaros, while flashy and 'popular' don't sell in numbers close to plain jane sedans.  

GM was not smart because of it's reliance on large inefficient vehicles as cash cows, without preparing for the eventuality that gas prices would climb.  When gas prices skyrocketed, GM was caught with it's pants down.  

They do have a potential ace in the hole with the Volt.  Lutz knew GM needed something like it, and the time came to start development.   The only hurdle now is the final price.  At <$30k, the Volt could supplant the Prius as the 'green' car of choice.  At >$30k, probably not so much.  

Anyway, GM has not been flexible and innovative until very recently.  It may be too late.


Who the hell is going to buy a Volt at $30k when gas costs $1.75 a gallon?

Sorry, but the Volt is a niche vehicle.  It is great when gas jumps 250%, but...


You think gas prices will stay low?  Forever?   We thought that before.  
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:51:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
Originally Posted By Loopy:
does all this B.S. sound too much like Chrysler back in the 70's? guess they have yet to learn from their mistakes.


The big 3 were having similar problems in the late 70's... struggling to keep up with massive new government regulations.  Remember Chrysler's "lean burn" failure?  Corvettes with less than 150 HP?  Detroit didn't *want* to sell a Corvette that was outclassed by some lawn equipment, and consumers didn't *want* to buy it.

If Washington would butt out, problems would work themselves out.



Ding, Ding, Ding!  Winner!
Washington is telling the carmakers what cars IT wants them to build to sell for us, instead of just building the cars the people who are buying them want. Far a car to be successful, it has to beat two obstacles:
#1 the government imposed requirements
#2 It has to be something the people want in spite of the government meddling

Just remember this: Ford is currently selling a car in Europe that gets 65 mpg, but because of two problems it will not be sold here in the US.
#1 Governmental regulations
#2 The US doesn't like diesel cars, and they don't sell very well

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 7:55:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By Torf:
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:


GM does and always have made cars people love .the most popular cars ever made have been GM .



If you're talking about classics.  Modern/late model cars, the Camry is one of the top selling people movers.  GM is playing catch up.  The new Malibu is nice...

Imports likely sell more 'common' type cars.  Corvettes and Camaros, while flashy and 'popular' don't sell in numbers close to plain jane sedans.  

GM was not smart because of it's reliance on large inefficient vehicles as cash cows, without preparing for the eventuality that gas prices would climb.  When gas prices skyrocketed, GM was caught with it's pants down.  

They do have a potential ace in the hole with the Volt.  Lutz knew GM needed something like it, and the time came to start development.   The only hurdle now is the final price.  At <$30k, the Volt could supplant the Prius as the 'green' car of choice.  At >$30k, probably not so much.  

Anyway, GM has not been flexible and innovative until very recently.  It may be too late.


Who the hell is going to buy a Volt at $30k when gas costs $1.75 a gallon?

Sorry, but the Volt is a niche vehicle.  It is great when gas jumps 250%, but...


You think gas prices will stay low?  Forever?   We thought that before.  


Didn't say they would.

Gas has tumbled faster and farther than it rose!  Gas may stabilize at $1.80, or it may drop to a buck.  If it stabilizes at $2.50 then I would say that the Volt is still a niche vehicle.

It is obvious that at $4 prices cannot be maintained for long.

Long term prices are dicey though.  I don't trust the next administration to allow cheap energy in any form.  Gas goes up, kWh prices are going up next.  Simple as that.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 8:08:47 AM EDT
Yeah, it's interesting, and ultimately... a failure.

But good reading...



Call it a marriage of convenience.

"I don't think they really needed the car; that wasn't what this was all about," GM President John F. (Jack) Smith tells Ward's Auto World. "I think it was really about trade issues. When this was first discussed (in 1993), we had lunch with them one day (in Detroit) and we were into trade issues. Everyone was concerned about the things we could do –– sell (Toyota) more components, they could take a car from us. One thing led to another, and eventually we put together a joint program on the car."

It helped that GM is a good Toyota customer. Since 1984, GM has purchased more than 1.1 million Geo Prizms (nee Novas) from New United Motor Mfg. Inc. (NUMMI), the 50/50 Toyota/GM venture operated by Toyota in Fremont, CA.

It also doubtlessly helped that Mr. Smith was GM's point man in establishing NUMMI a decade ago, and that he and other GM executives have remained on close terms with top Toyota officials.

And it didn't hurt that Toyota would get one of GM's most advanced models, the all-new Cavalier J-car that moved haltingly into production at Lordstown a year ago but now is running at its rated 70-cars-per-hour rate with quality –– based on GM audits –– far above the model it replaced.

<snip>

Toyota has produced a slick advertising program for the launch aimed around the theme "Welcome Mr. Cavalier." And the car's heritage is hardly disguised: GM is played up in advertising and commercials, which include backdrops such as American football fields, basketball courts and familiar scenes.

Toyota Executive Vice President Toshimi Onishi observes that "We see Cavalier as another great result of GM/Toyota cooperation. We compete around the world, but team up in special markets."

It should be sobering to their competitors that the world's No. 1 and No.3 automakers can pull off deals like this. Just think what they could do if they got really serious.


Toyota Cavalier Debuts
The Toyota Cavalier first appeared in Toyota dealerships throughout Japan on January 20, 1996. They were built at the Lordstown Assembly Plant, in Lordstown, Ohio, on the same assembly line as the Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire. The most obvious difference, of course, being that they were all right-hand drive! The Toyota Cavaliers were shipped by rail and ship to Japan.

Toyota Cavaliers were available in both coupe and sedan form. GM states that the Toyota Cavalier was “tailored specifically for the Japanese consumer” and sure enough, there were some features on the Toyota brand that were not even options on the Chevy models, including leather options, a carpeted trunk lid, folding side mirrors and more.

Toyota Cavaliers had a single standard drivetrain: the 2.4L "Twin Cam" (LD9) engine mated to a four-speed Hydramatic 4T40-E automatic transmission, with overdrive. The Isuzu (96-99) & Getrag (2000) 5-speed manual transmissions found in North America were not available on the Toyota Cavalier.

Many features were standard on the Toyota Cavalier:

Air conditioning
Tilt steering
Dual air bags
Anti-lock braking system
Power windows
Power door locks
Leather-wrapped steering wheel, shift knob and emergency brake handle
Rear seat with integrated centre armrest
Side markers
Wider-flared fenders to cover front tires

There were many other differences on the Toyota Cavalier, including:

Cruise control was not available
The fuel door was flat, with an inside release handle
The radio antenna was integrated into the front windshield
Manual folding mirrors were added mid-1996, and power folding mirrors were standard for 1997

Toyota had aimed to sell 20,000 of the vehicles annually, or about 1,700 per month. The cars were released on January 20, 1996 and by February 19 Toyota had received orders for about 950 sedans and 850 coupes. Unfortunately, strong initial interest died off and by July 1996 sales had totalled only 6,700 vehicles. In an effort to perk up sales, Toyota’s Technocraft subsidiary introduced upgraded models featuring automatic folding side mirrors, rear spoilers and emblems. The 2.4 TRD coupes, equipped with an 11-piece TRD designed body kit, retailed in Japan for 2.29 million yen, up 240,000 yen from the standard issue Cavalier coupe, which sold for 2.05 million yen.

TRD continued with additional aftermarket support, producing a set of lowering springs. Bomex also offered aftermarket support for the Toyota Cavalier, developing body kits, a spoiler, and sleek side view mirrors.

The Toyota Cavalier was available from 1996 through the 2000 model year, until finally discontinued due to poor sales.



From: http://www.members.shaw.ca/toyota_cavalier/
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 8:09:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Nytmayr:
Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
Originally Posted By Loopy:
does all this B.S. sound too much like Chrysler back in the 70's? guess they have yet to learn from their mistakes.


The big 3 were having similar problems in the late 70's... struggling to keep up with massive new government regulations.  Remember Chrysler's "lean burn" failure?  Corvettes with less than 150 HP?  Detroit didn't *want* to sell a Corvette that was outclassed by some lawn equipment, and consumers didn't *want* to buy it.

If Washington would butt out, problems would work themselves out.



Ding, Ding, Ding!  Winner!
Washington is telling the carmakers what cars IT wants them to build to sell for us, instead of just building the cars the people who are buying them want. Far a car to be successful, it has to beat two obstacles:
#1 the government imposed requirements
#2 It has to be something the people want in spite of the government meddling

Just remember this: Ford is currently selling a car in Europe that gets 65 mpg, but because of two problems it will not be sold here in the US.
#1 Governmental regulations
#2 The US doesn't like diesel cars, and they don't sell very well



That arguement might have had some merit IF it was impacting all the imports the same way, but its not.....
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 8:12:20 AM EDT
I disagree with all that safety b.s. unless he's talking about Mercedes. But I'll take my Chevy 2500 6L over a Toyota Prius any day in regards to safety.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 8:22:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep:
I disagree with all that safety b.s. unless he's talking about Mercedes. But I'll take my Chevy 2500 6L over a Toyota Prius any day in regards to safety.



No shit.  I am happy with my Tahoe.

If a liberal guy and a liberal gal want to change the world in a Yugo, let them.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 10:23:11 AM EDT
Guys, most of GM's problems came from two sources, The government, and the UAW.

Regulations hurt.  Not drilling for oil (thanks Dems) killed their only profitable sections when oil went through the roof.

So many idiotic regulations from the .gov did the rest.

TXL

Remember, when 9/11 happened, all the big 3 immediately did what they could to help the economy.  

I think they should be FORCED into bankruptcy and their labor contracts killed.

It will never happen with the big O

Too many union voters out there....


TXL
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 11:10:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hamel:
Originally Posted By Nytmayr:
Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
Originally Posted By Loopy:
does all this B.S. sound too much like Chrysler back in the 70's? guess they have yet to learn from their mistakes.


The big 3 were having similar problems in the late 70's... struggling to keep up with massive new government regulations.  Remember Chrysler's "lean burn" failure?  Corvettes with less than 150 HP?  Detroit didn't *want* to sell a Corvette that was outclassed by some lawn equipment, and consumers didn't *want* to buy it.

If Washington would butt out, problems would work themselves out.



Ding, Ding, Ding!  Winner!
Washington is telling the carmakers what cars IT wants them to build to sell for us, instead of just building the cars the people who are buying them want. Far a car to be successful, it has to beat two obstacles:
#1 the government imposed requirements
#2 It has to be something the people want in spite of the government meddling

Just remember this: Ford is currently selling a car in Europe that gets 65 mpg, but because of two problems it will not be sold here in the US.
#1 Governmental regulations
#2 The US doesn't like diesel cars, and they don't sell very well



That arguement might have had some merit IF it was impacting all the imports the same way, but its not.....


Yes it is.  Did you notice that VW's diesel offerings were absent from the US market last year, while they were scrambling to meet new emissions regulations?  Or that the new Mercedes diesel has to have a freaking tank of Urea to help scrub the exhaust?  These sorts of issues make entry-level diesel compacts too expensive to compete in the US, where they are a runaway success in Europe.

On the gasoline side of things, the Cobalt coupe now gets better gas mileage than the Civic for less money.  Bear in mind that the Cobalt is still cheaper than a Civic, despite GM being saddled with all of their legacy expenses... that's one hell of an accomplishment (or part of the reason they're so deep in the red and begging for salvation).  The Acadia / Traverse / etc... now have direct injection engines that give them better mileage than a Honda Pilot.  They are trying and doing pretty darn good with what they've got, but Congress has put one hell of a boulder in front of them.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 11:38:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
Originally Posted By Hamel:
Originally Posted By Nytmayr:
Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
Originally Posted By Loopy:
does all this B.S. sound too much like Chrysler back in the 70's? guess they have yet to learn from their mistakes.


The big 3 were having similar problems in the late 70's... struggling to keep up with massive new government regulations.  Remember Chrysler's "lean burn" failure?  Corvettes with less than 150 HP?  Detroit didn't *want* to sell a Corvette that was outclassed by some lawn equipment, and consumers didn't *want* to buy it.

If Washington would butt out, problems would work themselves out.



Ding, Ding, Ding!  Winner!
Washington is telling the carmakers what cars IT wants them to build to sell for us, instead of just building the cars the people who are buying them want. Far a car to be successful, it has to beat two obstacles:
#1 the government imposed requirements
#2 It has to be something the people want in spite of the government meddling

Just remember this: Ford is currently selling a car in Europe that gets 65 mpg, but because of two problems it will not be sold here in the US.
#1 Governmental regulations
#2 The US doesn't like diesel cars, and they don't sell very well



That arguement might have had some merit IF it was impacting all the imports the same way, but its not.....


Yes it is.  Did you notice that VW's diesel offerings were absent from the US market last year, while they were scrambling to meet new emissions regulations?  Or that the new Mercedes diesel has to have a freaking tank of Urea to help scrub the exhaust?  These sorts of issues make entry-level diesel compacts too expensive to compete in the US, where they are a runaway success in Europe.

On the gasoline side of things, the Cobalt coupe now gets better gas mileage than the Civic for less money.  Bear in mind that the Cobalt is still cheaper than a Civic, despite GM being saddled with all of their legacy expenses... that's one hell of an accomplishment (or part of the reason they're so deep in the red and begging for salvation).  The Acadia / Traverse / etc... now have direct injection engines that give them better mileage than a Honda Pilot.  They are trying and doing pretty darn good with what they've got, but Congress has put one hell of a boulder in front of them.


Oh, I'm not arguing that gov regulations dosesn't impact what a car company can offer, but its not the reason that put GM, Ford and Chrysler in this mess they're in now. That plus plenty of "successful" car models were developed/sold by manufacturers with these regulations in already in place.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 11:40:02 AM EDT
Lots of people buy GM cars.  Their UAW expenses are too high
Top Top