Will you buy a bailout car?

[Galois]

Just curious if others plan to avoid GM and Chrysler products post bankruptcy?

Maybe I am a bit stubborn but I have to confess this entire bailout arrangement does not sit at all well with me. The more details that come out the more sick it makes me.

I have a real problem with seeing $2B in taxpayer funds used to provide lucrative CAW pensions where neither the workers or employer actually contributed to the plan while 3 quarters of taxpayers in Ontario don't actually even have one.

I can't fathom that we are running the largest deficit in Canadian history and one fifth of that will be used to save just one company - A company that will be controlled largely by the US government and the UAW with few commitments beyond drastically reducing its capacity here.

I don't see how this misguided "investment" of taxpayer resources ends well. GM announced today as part of their restructuring deal they will forgo a planned plant in China in favor of reopening a US plant - exactly the kind of management decisions you can expect from a company run by a government and union. If they had simply allowed GM to collapse and the viable assets be put into the hands of competent private investment I would have given them a chance, this course the Canadian government has been duped into though is only certain to cost the taxpayers a fortune (just watch how much subsidies grow on the Volt) - and inevitably fail.

Bottom line I guess, they can, and will do what they want, but I am not playing ball, you won't see one in my driveway.

[gilboman]

i'm not stupid, so why would i base a decision on a car purchase on whether the auto company got gov't assistance or not?

all automakers got/get assisstance (even Toyota/Honda got huge amoutn of $$ to locate here). a car purchase should be based on $$/value/performance/safety/etc..stuff that is actually relevent to the vehicle and ownership experience. not whether the company got govt assistance

[sbobcat]

Oh! Yeah! G8 camaro CTS and Volt, just to name a few.

[sixer]

Absolutely, better deals and lots of nice cars

[Galois]

There is a huge difference between the prudent investments that the government made in attracting Honda and Toyota here and the misguided bailouts they have been duped into for GM and Chrysler. They don't belong in the same conversation.

I suspect your right though, the up front price will likely be the deciding factor for most. Just remember to think about all the money you saved when you do your taxes as they return to the levels we had the last time we ran deficits like this in the early 90's.

[KorruptioN]

Likely not. There's just nothing that appeals to me... and it's not just because "they're American". Technical specifications, styling, the list goes on. I think I can say that I'm making an informed decision on the matter.

... in before help_questions and more of his rhetoric.

[urameatball]

I walked into a Chevrolet dealer a while ago, there was actually a NOTICEABLE layer of dust on all the showroom cars, I LOL'd.

Walk into any Japanese (or maybe even Korean) dealership and all you see are newly detailed cars in the morning, and newly detailed cars with fingerprints all over them before closing.

[RMachucaA]

I went to a pontiac dealership recently here in montreal to see how much they would budge for a base G8.

Answer: they wont.

The guy refused to do any barganing whatsover, zero, nothing. If i had been really impressed i would have pulled the trigger on it, but unfortunately the salesman smelt like stale bread with mothballs, looked like he had just woken up and put on his 80's leisure suit, refused to bargain even 100$ and was just plain dis-interested in my money (too bad for them).

This was at parkway plaza off the 40 near the 13.

Afterwards, we went to a subaru dealer... they had a crack team of salesmen, i swear they made the feeling of getting ripped off for a new car a pleasurable one, all dressed to the 9's, smelt good, and we're very interested in helping us out AND where KNOWLEDGEABLE. The salesman at pontiac KNEW NOTHING about the G8, i had to correct him on a few specs.

Just because of that, we're 80% sure our next car this summer is a subie. Unless they start clearing out g8's at +-22k$ out the door, i wont even entertain the idea.

[gilboman]

There is a huge difference between the prudent investments that the government made in attracting Honda and Toyota here and the misguided bailouts they have been duped into for GM and Chrysler. They don't belong in the same conversation.

I suspect your right though, the up front price will likely be the deciding factor for most. Just remember to think about all the money you saved when you do your taxes as they return to the levels we had the last time we ran deficits like this in the early 90's.

investments however u put it, is just money. money to GM/Chrysler or money to Honda/Toyota. Money's money. without bailing out GM, even honda/toyota would be in serious trouble since scores of parts makers will go out of business.

and the bailouts are chump change to the deficit anyways. the small amount of $$ the cdn govt is using to bail out the automakers is not even a drop in the bucket in the big picture.

[VivienM]

Afterwards, we went to a subaru dealer... they had a crack team of salesmen, i swear they made the feeling of getting ripped off for a new car a pleasurable one, all dressed to the 9's, smelt good, and we're very interested in helping us out AND where KNOWLEDGEABLE. The salesman at pontiac KNEW NOTHING about the G8, i had to correct him on a few specs.

Obviously the Subaru dealers in Montreal are better than the ones here.

I signed up for something @ the auto show. Got an email following up from a Subaru sales guy.

I don't think I have ever seen something with more typos and grammar mistakes in my life. Honestly, if I was his manager, he'd be fired on the spot. Horribly unprofessional.

[VivienM]

There is a huge difference between the prudent investments that the government made in attracting Honda and Toyota here and the misguided bailouts they have been duped into for GM and Chrysler. They don't belong in the same conversation.


Right, because you like Honda and Toyota, and you hate GM/Chrysler.

That's what it comes down to, isn't it?

My view: the US government screwed its own auto industry for decades (subsidies for Toyota/Honda plants, a private health care system that penalizes older companies with retirees, regulatory regimes like CAFE that favour automakers without a full product line, etc.). But apparently it's ONLY when GM/Chrysler are actually bankrupt that they seem willing to vaguely revert course... and if the Canadian government doesn't follow, then byebye auto industry in southern Ontario. Whooops.

Not that the bailout will fix much. Anybody who thinks GM/Chrysler are in trouble because they don't make "small fuel efficient cars" is an idiot. (Yes, that includes many higher-ups in the current US administration who think the world would be better if we were just a bit more like Europeans.) So if the bailed out automakers get directed to produce "small fuel efficient cars", they'll be bankrupt again in 10 years.

For the record, the bailout hasn't changed my position. I'll consider GM/Chrysler again as soon as they have reasonable leasing offers, because in my mind THAT speaks to the management's confidence in their products. I'm not saying that you necessarily have to lease (leasing is the wrong choice for many people), but I think the availability of leasing offers should always be considered. Why? Because, if they SELL you a car, and it's crap, it's YOUR problem and your money. If you LEASE a car, and it's crap, in 4 years, it becomes THEIR problem again... and if nobody wants to buy it at what they thought it would be worth, too bad. Not your money (directly).

[alex_d10]

Every car in my family has been an import over the past 10 years.

And I would absolutely buy a G8 if I was shopping for a car right now. The problem is that the G8 is not even really a Pontiac.

[RMachucaA]

Every car in my family has been an import over the past 10 years.

And I would absolutely buy a G8 if I was shopping for a car right now. The problem is that the G8 is not even really a Pontiac.

Im sure you meant to say "there is no problem with the pontiac G8, its not a pontiac" :P.

Holdens are awesome cars.

[gman]

Just remember to think about all the money you saved when you do your taxes as they return to the levels we had the last time we ran deficits like this in the early 90's.

If that is the reason, you should buy 'bailout' car. Since your money (tax money) is already 'invested' to it and you more or less have no say to stop it, don't you want them to earn money so that you won't need to give them more money later?

[Engi-Nir]

I am very%2

[sbobcat]

Small fuel efficiency car or even TDI/ hybrid won't save you a lot of money since you must pay a a lot to get them and more to maintain them (2000 for the battery). you maybe make up the money in 7 years of driving but you will miss all the performance and safety in these 7 years. Maybe it just me, 6 footer, I always feel safer/ comfort sitting in a bigger car. so unless gas price jump up to the European level, i won't pay the extra to save a few cents at the pump. Sorry Mr Gore and Mr Suzuki.

Vince

[Engi-Nir]

I walked into a Chevrolet dealer a while ago, there was actually a NOTICEABLE layer of dust on all the showroom cars, I LOL'd.

Walk into any Japanese (or maybe even Korean) dealership and all you see are newly detailed cars in the morning, and newly detailed cars with fingerprints all over them before closing.
Look at the # of vehicles sold in April 2009, and GM sold more, so how does the dust comment make sense ;) What still doesn't make sense to me is, people still buying GM given it was destined to bankruptcy. Where as Toyota/Honda were hammered in States over GM

http://i40.tinypic.com/125gcqg.png

[Sepiraph]

There isn't really any American cars I like except for the Corvette or the Vipers. But if any of Big 3 makes a car I really like, I wouldn't mind buying from them.

Btw, nice name OP (named after the mathematician?)

[John523]

Im sure you meant to say "there is no problem with the pontiac G8, its not a pontiac" :P.

Holdens are awesome cars.

Why is it that GM built far better cars in Europe and Australia, and they gave us inferior products. The G8 (Holden), the Aura and Astra (Opel) are superior to what they designed and built in North America. Too little too late.

[Engi-Nir]

Why is it that GM built far better cars in Europe and Australia, and they gave us inferior products. The G8 (Holden), the Aura and Astra (Opel) are superior to what they designed and built in North America. Too little too late.

They have good products now (CTS,malibu,acadia,enclave, camaro, etc) and new products coming out soon, along with their Opel/holden offerings. Now, they are not late given the government bailout lol.

[CaptSmethwick]

To the original question:

You're free to make whatever purchasing decision you wish and, if you wish to channel your anger through to your car purchase, fill your boots. As for me, I'll do a lot of research and test-drive several vehicles - including GMs (and potentially Chryslers), Fords, and imports form Asia and Europe.

OTOH, if I don't find any GM or Chrysler vehicles to be appealing or meet my needs, I won't consider them. The bailout will have zero impact on my next choice.


There is a huge difference between the prudent investments that the government made in attracting Honda and Toyota here and the misguided bailouts they have been duped into for GM and Chrysler. They don't belong in the same conversation.

See, I think they do. Regardless of how you look at it, territories compete against one another to woo manufacturers to set up in their locale because jobs are desireable. And they will compete by kicking in training incentives, tax holidays, infrastructure, etc. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been around forever and do not attract quite as many of these incentives but yet still contribute in a significant way in terms of corporate and property taxes - and their workers and dealerships pay a lot of taxes as well.

Ironically, these incentives have provided an even stronger competitive advantage to the import manufacturers building new plants in North America. Whereas the laws of the land mean that any new plant built by the Detroit 3 will immediately be unionized, import manufacturers do not have unions already certified and would never locate a new plant in union hotbed regions. Whether good or bad, these incentives had really shone a spotlight on the underlying cost structure difference between the import and domestic manufacturers.

The current crisis and its ensuing bankruptcy protection is allowing GM (and Chrysler) to restructure their underlying costs and should put them on a footing that will be more cost competitive with Asian and European manufacturers. How can that be a bad thing? Yes, it's expensive but the bailout pales against the stream of taxes that these manufacturers (and their workers and dealers) have paid over the last century (and will continue to pay).

Still, you obviously believe the current round of financial assistance to be misguided and that the protaganists have "duped" politicians suggesting that your mind is made up and you don't really want to have a genuine exchange of views. Sadly, you're not alone.


I walked into a Chevrolet dealer a while ago, there was actually a NOTICEABLE layer of dust on all the showroom cars, I LOL'd.

Walk into any Japanese (or maybe even Korean) dealership and all you see are newly detailed cars in the morning, and newly detailed cars with fingerprints all over them before closing.

I hear what you're saying - I frequently return to my vehicle and find people peering into the windows. I have to wipe fingerprints off its windows at least every week. Last time I experienced that was with my '92 Mazda 929.

[misterburns]

We will be looking at a

Honda Fit
Mazda 3
Saturn Astra
Hyundai Elantra Touring
Pontiac Vibe
Suzuki sx4
Kia Soul (maybe)

in the next few months. And buy one of those based upon Affordibility and Functionality. Politics will never dictate how we spend our money.

Bailout cars just mean slightly cheaper. Nothin else. :lol:

[Galois]

If that is the reason, you should buy 'bailout' car. Since your money (tax money) is already 'invested' to it and you more or less have no say to stop it, don't you want them to earn money so that you won't need to give them more money later?

It's a fair point but from my perspective this only encourages the government to continue these practices with the illusion they are as effective as what could have occurred had free market principles been left to due course.

It strikes me as similar to the 1980 bailout of Chrysler that the Government likes to claim was a success while conveniently ignoring the fact they are bankrupt again. They never entertain what could have happened had they been allowed to simply fail in 1980 - the viable assets could have been put into the hands of competent private investment free of legacy debt and stifling union contracts and redeveloped as a company that might actually have been viable today, we will never know. What we do know is they didn't change because thats what bailouts accomplish - they avoid fixing problems and making hard choices, a couple decades later and here they are back with their hands out.

[TenzoR]

I went to a pontiac dealership recently here in montreal to see how much they would budge for a base G8.

Answer: they wont.

The guy refused to do any barganing whatsover, zero, nothing. If i had been really impressed i would have pulled the trigger on it, but unfortunately the salesman smelt like stale bread with mothballs, looked like he had just woken up and put on his 80's leisure suit, refused to bargain even 100$ and was just plain dis-interested in my money (too bad for them).

This was at parkway plaza off the 40 near the 13.

Afterwards, we went to a subaru dealer... they had a crack team of salesmen, i swear they made the feeling of getting ripped off for a new car a pleasurable one, all dressed to the 9's, smelt good, and we're very interested in helping us out AND where KNOWLEDGEABLE. The salesman at pontiac KNEW NOTHING about the G8, i had to correct him on a few specs.

Just because of that, we're 80% sure our next car this summer is a subie. Unless they start clearing out g8's at +-22k$ out the door, i wont even entertain the idea.

Depends where you go, my co-worker got a heck of a deal on his G8.

[Galois]

Right, because you like Honda and Toyota, and you hate GM/Chrysler.

That's what it comes down to, isn't it?

My view: the US government screwed its own auto industry for decades (subsidies for Toyota/Honda plants, a private health care system that penalizes older companies with retirees, regulatory regimes like CAFE that favour automakers without a full product line, etc.). But apparently it's ONLY when GM/Chrysler are actually bankrupt that they seem willing to vaguely revert course... and if the Canadian government doesn't follow, then byebye auto industry in southern Ontario. Whooops.

Not that the bailout will fix much. Anybody who thinks GM/Chrysler are in trouble because they don't make "small fuel efficient cars" is an idiot. (Yes, that includes many higher-ups in the current US administration who think the world would be better if we were just a bit more like Europeans.) So if the bailed out automakers get directed to produce "small fuel efficient cars", they'll be bankrupt again in 10 years.

For the record, the bailout hasn't changed my position. I'll consider GM/Chrysler again as soon as they have reasonable leasing offers, because in my mind THAT speaks to the management's confidence in their products. I'm not saying that you necessarily have to lease (leasing is the wrong choice for many people), but I think the availability of leasing offers should always be considered. Why? Because, if they SELL you a car, and it's crap, it's YOUR problem and your money. If you LEASE a car, and it's crap, in 4 years, it becomes THEIR problem again... and if nobody wants to buy it at what they thought it would be worth, too bad. Not your money (directly).

Heh, what to say to that... not sure how favoring investments in attracting companies that have proven growth records instead of ones that plan to close plants makes me some kind of *** Fanboi or whatever your trying to imply.

That said I think your right in the sense that legacy costs of a matured workforce have put the US companies at a huge disadvantage though a lot of it could have been avoided if the government had played the role it is actually supposed to do and regulated things like pension contributions.

No employee defined pension plan should ever be attached to their employer (or union), ever, period. Flabbergasting this isn't law.

[John523]

They have good products now (CTS,malibu,acadia,enclave, camaro, etc) and new products coming out soon, along with their Opel/holden offerings. Now, they are not late given the government bailout lol.

True, but these vehicles were brought out in the last 3 years. Their troubles began long ago.

[mr_raider]

If you want domestic, get a Ford. They seem to be the best in quality, and the furthest from insolvency.

[Engi-Nir]

Depends where you go, my co-worker got a heck of a deal on his G8.

How much of a deal? $6500, $1k maintenance, $1K pontiac owner discount so about $8500 is the amount off, plus I guess Dealership discount..so how much did the person end up getting, and I am assuming G8 GT?

[VivienM]

Heh, what to say to that... not sure how favoring investments in attracting companies that have proven growth records instead of ones that plan to close plants makes me some kind of *** Fanboi or whatever your trying to imply.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Why are the domestics closing plants? It might just have something to do with the "companies that have proven growth records" expanding.

The domestics have been in a downward spiral for decades. Until this year, governments accelerated the process by helping the competitors "with proven growth records".


That said I think your right in the sense that legacy costs of a matured workforce have put the US companies at a huge disadvantage though a lot of it could have been avoided if the government had played the role it is actually supposed to do and regulated things like pension contributions.

No employee defined pension plan should ever be attached to their employer (or union), ever, period. Flabbergasting this isn't law.

The unionized US auto industry represents the so-called "welfare capitalism" model. i.e. where the things that in Europe are provided by the state (health insurance, pensions, etc) are provided by the employer.

It's a model that the Americans, with their political system that's nervous about government-run things (especially health insurance), have liked for decades. But it's a model that CANNOT hold up in the face of competitors without the same costs...

The politicians COULD have done something about it 10-15 years ago. Instead, they chose to give subsidies to "companies with proven growth records" that had LOWER costs.

Smart, eh? First you encourage a system that gives YOUR companies higher costs, then you give foreign companies with lower costs some additional subsidies to lower their costs just a little more. Then you combine this with the American MBA/quarterly results culture which is structurally incapable of investing for the long term.

What you ended up with is this: the automakers with the highest costs, due to their lack of a big enough investment/R&D budget, end up competing on price. And that just will lead to bankruptcy, eventually...

Compare that with the Germans: I'm sure the costs to make Audis and BMWs in Germany are high too, but the German automakers have leading edge (and unreliable) technology (and style, etc) that customers are willing to pay extra for. So they're doing fine...

Really, they should have been bailed out 10 years ago... with the money to go towards R&D - in the GM case, at least, especially transmissions (some moron 10-15 years ago decided not to produce > 4 speed auto transmissions, and while Lutz/Wagoner reversed course, it was too late)
That would have stopped the disgraces such as the Buick Lucerne - gorgeous car, but ~$45K for a vintage-1993 state of the art expensive-to-build powertrain that guzzles gas like the V8 that it is but delivers about the same 0-100km/h acceleration as a 4 banger Nissan Altima?

[urameatball]

Look at the # of vehicles sold in April 2009, and GM sold more, so how does the dust comment make sense ;) What still doesn't make sense to me is, people still buying GM given it was destined to bankruptcy. Where as Toyota/Honda were hammered in States over GM


Drop by Dean Myers Chevrolet (If you're in TO) and check it out yourself. I dare you to rub your sleeve on the hood of the cars in the showroom.

[alex_d10]

Look at the # of vehicles sold in April 2009, and GM sold more, so how does the dust comment make sense ;) What still doesn't make sense to me is, people still buying GM given it was destined to bankruptcy. Where as Toyota/Honda were hammered in States over GM

http://i40.tinypic.com/125gcqg.png
Yeah but that's kinda flawed. How many of those chevys are fleet cars?

[UrbanPoet]

Yeah but that's kinda flawed. How many of those chevys are fleet cars?

A fleet car bought is still a sale.

[gilboman]

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Why are the domestics closing plants? It might just have something to do with the "companies that have proven growth records" expanding.

The domestics have been in a downward spiral for decades. Until this year, governments accelerated the process by helping the competitors "with proven growth records".



The unionized US auto industry represents the so-called "welfare capitalism" model. i.e. where the things that in Europe are provided by the state (health insurance, pensions, etc) are provided by the employer.

It's a model that the Americans, with their political system that's nervous about government-run things (especially health insurance), have liked for decades. But it's a model that CANNOT hold up in the face of competitors without the same costs...

The politicians COULD have done something about it 10-15 years ago. Instead, they chose to give subsidies to "companies with proven growth records" that had LOWER costs.

Smart, eh? First you encourage a system that gives YOUR companies higher costs, then you give foreign companies with lower costs some additional subsidies to lower their costs just a little more. Then you combine this with the American MBA/quarterly results culture which is structurally incapable of investing for the long term.

What you ended up with is this: the automakers with the highest costs, due to their lack of a big enough investment/R&D budget, end up competing on price. And that just will lead to bankruptcy, eventually...

Compare that with the Germans: I'm sure the costs to make Audis and BMWs in Germany are high too, but the German automakers have leading edge (and unreliable) technology (and style, etc) that customers are willing to pay extra for. So they're doing fine...

Really, they should have been bailed out 10 years ago... with the money to go towards R&D - in the GM case, at least, especially transmissions (some moron 10-15 years ago decided not to produce > 4 speed auto transmissions, and while Lutz/Wagoner reversed course, it was too late)
That would have stopped the disgraces such as the Buick Lucerne - gorgeous car, but ~$45K for a vintage-1993 state of the art expensive-to-build powertrain that guzzles gas like the V8 that it is but delivers about the same 0-100km/h acceleration as a 4 banger Nissan Altima?

you have a couple of points, but you seem to totally disregard the fact that GM/Chrysler screwed themselves over because they had no small cars and you can whine all you want about legacy costs and how the government weren't helping private businesses (why should they?).

but look at Ford, they made right management and product decisions and are doing fine.

Chrysler and GM only have themselves to blame and you are a fool for saying anything otherwise. Yes the government didnt help them, but so what? its not their job to. GM/Chrysler helped dig their own grave and deserve everything that is gone wrong with them.

and those Foreign companies you like to point out are creating lots of jobs and actually keeping the "US" auto industry from not being any worse. the US gov't was smart enough to see how poorly GM/Chrysler were run and hedged its bets by getting the quality automakers to come do business in the US

[CaptSmethwick]

you have a couple of points, but you seem to totally disregard the fact that GM/Chrysler screwed themselves over because they had no small cars and you can whine all you want about legacy costs and how the government weren't helping private businesses (why should they?).

but look at Ford, they made right management and product decisions and are doing fine.

Chrysler and GM only have themselves to blame and you are a fool for saying anything otherwise. Yes the government didnt help them, but so what? its not their job to. GM/Chrysler helped dig their own grave and deserve everything that is gone wrong with them.

and those Foreign companies you like to point out are creating lots of jobs and actually keeping the "US" auto industry from not being any worse. the US gov't was smart enough to see how poorly GM/Chrysler were run and hedged its bets by getting the quality automakers to come do business in the US

I actually agree with these observations. Okay, except the name-calling part.

There is no question that GM, Ford, & Chrysler made mistakes but the vitriol that I read (and often hear) aimed at these three and their products is typically severely under-informed. I understand brand boosterism and that some need to deride alternatives in an attempt to demonstrate how extraordinarily well they can choose a car but these things rarely translate well to an analysis of and industry, management decisions, and economic trends.

At the end of the day, if the fact that a company received a bailout is enough to stop people from investing in its profit, heaven help Americans who are looking for a firm to handle their investments.

[sbobcat]

you have a couple of points, but you seem to totally disregard the fact that GM/Chrysler screwed themselves over because they had no small cars and you can whine all you want about legacy costs and how the government weren't helping private businesses (why should they?).

but look at Ford, they made right management and product decisions and are doing fine.

Chrysler and GM only have themselves to blame and you are a fool for saying anything otherwise. Yes the government didn't help them, but so what? its not their job to. GM/Chrysler helped dig their own grave and deserve everything that is gone wrong with them.

and those Foreign companies you like to point out are creating lots of jobs and actually keeping the "US" auto industry from not being any worse. the US govt was smart enough to see how poorly GM/Chrysler were run and hedged its bets by getting the quality automakers to come do business in the US

Well, SMALL CARS DON"T MAKE MONEY. All manufactures need luxury big cars/trucks to bring you the profits. or you can do that with a 30K+ price tag to sell a SUB compact green car (mini, golf).
Anybody would spend 30K+ for the sub compact/small car for the GM/Chrysler? likely not(Astra). The only way they have a cheaper small car lineup that can bring them profit is import them from China. But you don't want to spend your bailout money to create jobs elsewhere, do you?
Something is missing with this Obama/Harper plan. It has too many objectives to implement in a such short and difficult time. Forget about the Green/ R&D / small car lineup/ fuel efficiency/ labour cost, If the boat is too heavy, it is harder to turn it around. You still can work those ideas in when the economic situation getting better. Now it is the jobs that you want to preserved to prevent the economic mud slide effect happen.

The April sales for GM and Chrysler is up because something call patriotism which this north side lack.

Vince

[Galois]

At the end of the day, if the fact that a company received a bailout is enough to stop people from investing in its profit, heaven help Americans who are looking for a firm to handle their investments.

??

Lots of competent organizations for Americans to invest with like Euro Pacific Capital, incompetent bailed out banks and brokerages would be my last choice.

Europac.net CEO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

[mr_raider]

The April sales for GM and Chrysler is up because something call patriotism which this north side lack.

Vince

Allow me to quote Wolverine:

"I'm Canadian".

[CaptSmethwick]

??

Lots of competent organizations for Americans to invest with like Euro Pacific Capital, incompetent bailed out banks and brokerages would be my last choice.

Europac.net CEO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Honestly? Whether or not a company received government assistance is going to be one of your primary considerations in your spending decisions? Well, if it's sincere, I admire you for that - even if I do consider it to be a little misguided and obsessive.

But, see, while I believe your sincerity on this issue, I also sense that you're distinguishing certain types of government assistance from others and that you have an underlying dislike for the types of decisions made or products offered by certain companies. Since I am able to disconnect the two from one another, I am far more pragmatic on the bailout issue - not saying either is better than the other; it just is what it is.

[VivienM]

you have a couple of points, but you seem to totally disregard the fact that GM/Chrysler screwed themselves over because they had no small cars and you can whine all you want about legacy costs and how the government weren't helping private businesses (why should they?).

Because the government HAPPILY helps Toyota/Honda!! Tax breaks for new manufacturing plants, for example.

As for small cars, if small cars are so great, why have Toyota and Nissan been trying SO HARD to get into pickups? It might have something to do with the fact that a Tundra is way more profitable than a Corolla.


but look at Ford, they made right management and product decisions and are doing fine.

Ford borrowed a big huge pile of cash a few years ago.

THAT's the big difference.

They're not "doing fine". They just have $20B of borrowed cash that they can burn through BEFORE they need to run to the government.

Three years ago, Ford was the one that everybody thought was the weakest. GM was the strongest.


Chrysler and GM only have themselves to blame and you are a fool for saying anything otherwise. Yes the government didnt help them, but so what? its not their job to. GM/Chrysler helped dig their own grave and deserve everything that is gone wrong with them.

And when the government hands over money to their competitors, that's good?

When the government sits back and watch as they spend $1500/car taking care of their retirees while Toyota/Honda have no US retirees to take care of, that's good too?

It's not a level playing field when:
a) Republicans love Toyota/Honda because they're in the south and have no unions, and
b) Democrats love Toyota/Honda because of their perceived environmentally-friendly image (and yes, it's BS - the Tundra is thirstier than a GM truck, but hey, they make that Prius, so Toyota must be $DEITY's gift to the environment)
... and have been doing so for at least a decade.

[movieman]

What still doesn't make sense to me is, people still buying GM given it was destined to bankruptcy.

Buying a highly discounted GM car makes perfect sense if you assume that they're going to get bailed out by governments who are too scared to let them go down; if they're selling cars at bankruptcy prices yet pretty much assured to get taxpayer money to prevent them from going out of business then you're getting a good deal.

Of course you might be wrong and end up with a lemon you can't get parts for, but if the likely cost of that possibility is much smaller than the discounts then why not buy?

[VivienM]

Well, SMALL CARS DON"T MAKE MONEY. All manufactures need luxury big cars/trucks to bring you the profits. or you can do that with a 30K+ price tag to sell a SUB compact green car (mini, golf).

Bingo.

The problem with GM has a LOT less to do with small cars (honestly, the Cobalt isn't even THAT bad) and a lot more with their big cars.

e.g. the Buick Lucerne with a 290HP V8, 4 speed tranny, 7.6 sec 0-100km/h time, and crappy fuel economy... all for $45-50K. For the same price, you can get a Lexus ES350 with a ~270HP V6, 6 speed tranny, <6.0 sec 0-100km/h, and like 2-3L/100km less fuel consumption... and more gizmos.

GM, a decade ago, did not invest in enough R&D to be competitive on the high-priced side of things. The Germans, and to a lesser extent, the Japanese did.

So, that left them competing on low price. e.g. my dad got a Buick Regal about 6 years ago for an absurdly low price for a V6, leather, auto. climate, etc mid-sized car. Probably saved... $8-10K over a comparable Toyota, and there was nothing wrong with the car reliability-wise. I'm sure GM didn't make any money off him though.

Now, he comes along 5 years later looking for another car, and... fundamentally, the price isn't lowered enough to reflect the fact that GM's technology hasn't changed in 5 years (the new GM stuff went into the CTS and Malibu, not Buicks). So he wound up getting a Hyundai... great price, and pretty close to world-class technology, too (6 speed tranny, dual-VVT DOHC engine, all the safety features one might want, HD-based navigation, 17 squeaker sound system, etc.).

You can either sell on price (the Hyundai method) or on quality (Toyota) or on technology (the Germans). GM doesn't have the technology in most of their lineup (DI CTSes aside), they don't have the reputation for quality even though their quality HAS markedly improved, so they were left selling on price.

If you're selling on price, then you need to have lower costs than the competition. Hyundai has lower costs, so they can sell cheaper and do well doing it... and have money left over to invest in R&D for the next generation of products. But GM's costs were HIGHER than Toyota/Honda's, and they are forced to sell at near-Hyundai prices worse-than-Hyundai cars?!? Whoops.

Honestly, as I think I said in a previous post, I think the government should have put up $5-10B for GM/Chrysler R&D 10 years ago. But instead, they have to put up $50B today... and there's far less likelihood of success.

[VivienM]

Buying a highly discounted GM car makes perfect sense if you assume that they're going to get bailed out by governments who are too scared to let them go down; if they're selling cars at bankruptcy prices yet pretty much assured to get taxpayer money to prevent them from going out of business then you're getting a good deal.

Of course you might be wrong and end up with a lemon you can't get parts for, but if the likely cost of that possibility is much smaller than the discounts then why not buy?

The thing about GM is, what you WANT to get from GM is something they've been producing forever and in large quantities.

a) they've worked the bugs out of those years and years ago, so they won't fail during the warranty period... or, most likely, for a long time after
b) there are plenty of spare parts and service knowledge around

So basically, get an Impala (or an Allure with the 3.8L, even better) with a 4T65, not a shiny new CTS with the DI engine and the new 6 speed tranny...

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

e.g. the Buick Lucerne with a 290HP V8, 4 speed tranny, 7.6 sec 0-100km/h time, and crappy fuel economy... all for $45-50K. For the same price, you can get a Lexus ES350 with a ~270HP V6, 6 speed tranny, <6.0 sec 0-100km/h, and like 2-3L/100km less fuel consumption... and more gizmos.


The Lucerne is in a larger size category than the ES/Camry. If you compare it to the Lacrosse/Allure it doesn't look so bad. Also both Buicks use regular instead of premium like the ES.

[VivienM]

The Lucerne is in a larger size category than the ES/Camry. If you compare it to the Lacrosse/Allure it doesn't look so bad.

GM, when they launched the Lucerne, said they benchmarked the ES. It would have been the ES330 back then. So that's why I'm comparing it to the ES...

I'm looking at the numbers now. The ES seems to have a lot less rear leg/hip room... and 2 cu-ft trunk space less.

But compare the fuel economy. 19/27 MPG (US) for the Lexus vs 15/22 for the Lucerne. And the acceleration on the Lexus is SIGNIFICANTLY better. The Northstar/4T80 combo was a great powertrain... in 1993 when GM first launched it. But Lexus has continually innovated, and GM... put their innovations only on other models.

So, what would you compare the Lucerne to? It's a large FWD "luxury" car, costs in the $40-50K (CAD) range for the V8, and offers most of the expected luxury car options in a car that price.

Toyota Avalon? Hyundai Azera? Lincoln MKS (but that car was just launched this year?)? Volvo... S60? Acura TL?

Unless you're carrying a lot of luggage or many rear passengers, all of those cars will no doubt spank the Lucerne, both on paper and on the road...

[VivienM]

Also both Buicks use regular instead of premium like the ES.

Sure, but premium costs 10% more. The ES burns 18% less fuel according to fueleconomy.gov and my rough math. :) So, ES still wins.

Should we compare the Lucerne to the Hyundai Genesis? I'm hesitant because one is RWD and the other is FWD, but they're around the same sticker price, they were both on my dad's shopping list, they both run on regular gas, and they both have the same interior room roughly (Genesis has more front leg room, Lucerne has more rear leg room; Genesis has less hip room but a tiny bit more front head room, etc), they both have 115.6 in wheelbases, etc.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

The Lucerne is a larger car so it uses more fuel, that's not really surprising. If you compare it to the 3.8 Allure, the fuel economy is pretty much the same and the Allure is $10k cheaper. If you compare it to the V8 Allure you lose a bit of fuel economy but get a boatload more torque and HP for about the same MSRP. Maybe the Buick isn't leaps and bounds better than the Toyota like GM is in most other classes but it's hardly uncompetetive.

I never thought there would be a day when I have to have this argument with you of all people. Things really are bad, eh?

[alex_d10]

Bingo.


e.g. the Buick Lucerne with a 290HP V8, 4 speed tranny, 7.6 sec 0-100km/h time, and crappy fuel economy... all for $45-50K. For the same price, you can get a Lexus ES350 with a ~270HP V6, 6 speed tranny, <6.0 sec 0-100km/h, and like 2-3L/100km less fuel consumption... and more gizmos.



On that note, I recently had the opportunity to abuse the hell out of a loaner 2008 ES350. It is easily the fastest FWD I've ever driven. Unbelievable pull for it's weight. And when I read the sticker price, I was impressed because it was right there with the CTS price wise, but with a lot more for the money (it seemed).

GM's luxury divisions will have a hard time catching with the Germans and Lexus in the eyes of the consumer.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

On that note, I recently had the opportunity to abuse the hell out of a loaner 2008 ES350. It is easily the fastest FWD I've ever driven. Unbelievable pull for it's weight. And when I read the sticker price, I was impressed because it was right there with the CTS price wise, but with a lot more for the money (it seemed).

The CTS is RWD with real sports car suspension. The ES might be almost as fast in a straight line, but that's it. If that's what you want, the V8 Lacrosse/Allure is faster than both of them.


So, what would you compare the Lucerne to? It's a large FWD "luxury" car, costs in the $40-50K (CAD) range for the V8, and offers most of the expected luxury car options in a car that price.

Toyota Avalon? Hyundai Azera? Lincoln MKS (but that car was just launched this year?)? Volvo... S60? Acura TL?

The MKS would be most similar I think. I'm waiting to see what the price will be on the 2010 AWD twin turbo Lincoln MKS. They had a pre-production version come out and it was running high 13s. That makes it as fast as the similarly sized Audi A8.

[VivienM]

The Lucerne is a larger car so it uses more fuel, that's not really surprising. If you compare it to the 3.8 Allure, the fuel economy is pretty much the same and the Allure is $10k cheaper. If you compare it to the V8 Allure you lose a bit of fuel economy but get a boatload more torque and HP for about the same MSRP. Maybe the Buick isn't leaps and bounds better than the Toyota like GM is in most other classes but it's hardly uncompetetive

No, the Lucerne has a dated powertrain, so it uses more fuel. 4 speed transmission, no VVT (IIRC - I think it's only the RWD Northstar that has VVT), 2 more cylinders that don't actually lead to more performance than the competition's V6s, etc.

Sure, it weighs 500 lbs more than the Lexus, too, which doesn't help. But that's another story...

Hell, compare the Lucerne with a 211HP Audi A4 2.0T quattro. The Audi is probably only about 300 lbs less, will burn way less gas (yay, turbos, small engines, and direct injection), and still accelerates from 0-100km/h in 1-1.3 seconds less than the Lucerne.

275HP or 290HP (it used to be 275) means the car should PERFORM much better than it does, at least. Even on a 4000 lbs car. If only it had two more gears...

And if you want to compare the 3.8 Allure to the Lexus ES, don't forget the MUCH SLOWER acceleration. ES will be ~6.0 seconds 0-100km/h; I'd be amazed if the Allure got less than 8.5...


I never thought there would be a day when I have to have this argument with you of all people. Things really are bad, eh?

I still think GM W bodies are solid used car values, but yes, I've soured on GM for new cars.

Really, the day they ended leasing is the day that I've stopped defending GM. And all those quotes by idiotic MBAs about how low interest 72 month loans are a good replacement for leasing - no, folks, they're not. Leasing is about RISK: i.e. if the car turns out to be a POS that no one wants to buy used, it's the manufacturers' shareholders' problem, not yours. 72 month loans? Well, if you want to get rid of the POS early, you're going to be so upside down that you'll be losing big bucks on the deal.

As I've said in many threads, if a company wants to inspire confidence in its product, good leasing offers are an important signal. It tells the buyer that the company's shareholders are willing to guarantee that the thing will still be worth X% in 4 years.

[VivienM]

GM's luxury divisions will have a hard time catching with the Germans and Lexus in the eyes of the consumer.

And Hyundai. Let's not forget that Hyundai is seriously attacking the luxury market from the bottom... i.e. the $40-50K segment.

So that's the problem. If you want high tech, go German... or Lexus. If you want rock solid dependable, go Lexus. If you want a good bargain for your money, go Hyundai or Infiniti.

Where do GM's two luxury brands fit into that?

For the record, I understand the CTS is very nice. I've never taken it too seriously though, if only because of the styling - I happen to like my luxury cars understated and conservative, i.e. Audi or Lexus.

[alex_d10]

And Hyundai. Let's not forget that Hyundai is seriously attacking the luxury market from the bottom... i.e. the $40-50K segment.

So that's the problem. If you want high tech, go German... or Lexus. If you want rock solid dependable, go Lexus. If you want a good bargain for your money, go Hyundai or Infiniti.

Where do GM's two luxury brands fit into that?

For the record, I understand the CTS is very nice. I've never taken it too seriously though, if only because of the styling - I happen to like my luxury cars understated and conservative, i.e. Audi or Lexus.

Agreed on all points.

I do ride in a CTS often (one of my best friends has one), but driving that E350 was definitely something else. Not to mention it looks better IMO.

At least GM (Buick/Caddy) always has the retiree market on lockdown. With the baby boomers retiring, who knows what kind of crazy sales trends we will see :lol:

[VivienM]

At least GM (Buick/Caddy) always has the retiree market on lockdown. With the baby boomers retiring, who knows what kind of crazy sales trends we will see :lol:

Not sure how true that is.

1) The "new" Cadillac styling doesn't really play to the retiree crowd, I think.
2) The true retiree cars were the old-school Town Car and Grand Marquis - both Fords. Now that they're more or less discontinued, who knows where that crowd will go? GM? Stick with Lincoln and get a MKS? Lexus?
3) With the dealer network shrinking, a lot of older folks who have "always" bought a new Buick/Cadillac from JoeBlowBuickCadillac are suddenly forced to shop elsewhere. Elsewhere might just mean a Lexus dealer...
4) GM's plan was to have the retiree crowd get Buicks so Cadillac could go after younger people. I'm not sure somebody who's driven Cadillacs for 20 years will happily downgrade to a Lucerne... or get a CTS.
5) Retirees have kids... and grandkids. Two demographics that REALLY hate domestics and have probably been pressuring grandpa to get a foreign car for two decades...

[JohnB]

No Id never never buy a bail out car (or a Ford.)

Id stick with Honda (Acura) or Toyota (Lexus.)

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

Hell, compare the Lucerne with a 211HP Audi 2.0T quattro. The Audi is probably only about 300 lbs less, will burn way less gas (yay, turbos, small engines, and direct injection), and still accelerates from 0-100km/h in 1-1.3 seconds less than the Lucerne.

275HP or 290HP (it used to be 275) means the car should PERFORM much better than it does, at least. Even on a 4000 lbs car. If only it had two more gears...

And if you want to compare the 3.8 Allure to the Lexus ES, don't forget the MUCH SLOWER acceleration. ES will be ~6.0 seconds 0-100km/h; I'd be amazed if the Allure got less than 8.5...

Sure, and the 3.8 Allure also costs $10k less. I would take the Buick pretty much under any circumstance. I can't see a single reason why anyone would buy any Toyota product except the Prius and maybe that V6 RAV4.

I don't know which Audi you're comparing the Lucerne to, since I'm pretty sure they don't put 2.0Ts in A8s.

[VivienM]

Sure, and the 3.8 Allure also costs $10k less. I would take the Buick pretty much under any circumstance. I can't see a single reason why anyone would buy any Toyota product except the Prius and maybe that V6 RAV4.

What are you comparing the 3.8 Allure to? A 4 cyl or V6 Camry? base model or fully loaded (with all kinds of gizmos not even available on the Allure)?


I don't know which Audi you're comparing the Lucerne to, since I'm pretty sure they don't put 2.0Ts in A8s.

I meant the A4. Smaller car than the Lucerne for sure (though they both have 17 cu ft trunks!), but I was trying to think of something reasonably heavy and in the same price range!

Most of the other Lucerne competitors I could think of were a good 500-600 lbs less. Though that begs the question - why, exactly, is the Lucerne so heavy?

[Engi-Nir]

interesting read....

By hatching new ideas and strategies, auto giant can dominate once again

May 31, 2009 04:30 AM
David Olive
TORONTO STAR

In the weeks leading up to the expected bankruptcy of this century-old icon, majority sentiment in the U.S., and to a lesser extent here, has been hostile about rewarding a chronically incompetent enterprise with a taxpayer-funded bailout.

And, to be sure, it does take a special kind of genius to lose $88 billion (U.S.) over the past four years, to have your shareholder value evaporate during that time from $30 billion to $702 million; lose to Toyota Motor Corp. the crown of world's biggest automaker after a 77-year run as No. 1.

Tough to say which is more remarkable: that perhaps half a dozen GM chief executives since 1980 alone, when GM claimed half the North American market, could bring about the near ruination of an enterprise that even today accounts for a full 1 per cent of U.S. GDP; or that American regard of failure and incompetence as shameful is so deeply ingrained that a mere 18 per cent of Americans support a government-backed rescue of GM and Chrysler.

So should Washington, Ottawa and Queen's Park pony up some $60 billion (U.S.) to finance GM's restructuring under bankruptcy?

Yes.

A humbled GM can change its ways, as a then-arrogant Fiat SpA did in pulling itself back from the brink only five years ago. (Fiat is now Chrysler's planned saviour.) And if a global credit crunch leaves government as the sole source of bailout financing, so be it.

As part of its restructuring, GM will close 14 plants, part ways with about one-quarter of its dealers (something it should have done years ago), and lay off yet another 21,000 employees. Yet, post-bankruptcy, a leaner and much healthier GM will continue to put bread on the table for tens of thousands of employees, about 4,000 suppliers, and several thousand dealership employees that often are the business mainstay in small-town North America.

GM remains the U.S.'s biggest manufacturer, still a powerhouse of engineering and technological breakthroughs, most visibly with its all-electric Chevrolet Volt. GM is America's biggest purchaser of information technology. Entire states in the industrial Midwest and Canadian cities such as Oshawa, Oakville, Windsor and St. Catharines rely on GM and its employees for an outsized portion of their property and income-tax revenue.

All of which is moot, if GM is ultimately destined, as many believe, for the scrapyard in the sky. Somehow, I don't think so.

GM will emerge from bankruptcy with only one-quarter or so of the debt it held earlier this year. It finally will be liberated from the burden of active and retiree health-care costs that have added an average $1,500 or so to the cost of each vehicle GM produces. (The health-care burden has been shifted to union-administered trusts financed in a one-shot deal by GM and with a top-up from government.)

GM's hourly wage costs, after enormous concessions by the Canadian Auto Workers and the United Auto Workers, are now in line with wage rates at "transplants" – the U.S. and Canadian factories operated by foreign-based automakers. The UAW has given up its right to strike until 2015.

After the waves of GM layoffs of recent years, and further reduction in capacity during the restructuring, GM will have cut its fixed costs to levels enabling it to compete on price with foreign-based rivals.

CEO Fritz Henderson told reporters last week that GM will be able to turn a profit even in the current dreadful market – with North American sales at a 27-year low of just 10 million vehicles and a GM market share of only 18.5 per cent, a slight reduction from the current 19.1 per cent.

"We will come out of this rid of some of the historic legacy costs that have been dragging us down for the last 20 years or so," Bob Lutz, GM vice-chairman, said in a Thursday speech. "We will come out of it with an all-new focus on product development."

In an off-the-record briefing of reporters that same day, an Obama administration official said: "GM should be highly, highly profitable given the new cost structure that is being put in place, given the vast reduction of liability that has been achieved."

Fact: "Auto companies rarely die," CEO Henderson reminded reporters last week.

He's not whistling in the dark, having overseen in the past few weeks the drastic makeover of GM that critics have demanded for decades. And he's right – out of national pride, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia and others routinely subsidize profit-challenged local automakers.

Focused on just four brands rather than eight, Buick and GMC will no longer be deprived of new-product development funds. For the first time, Buick will have close to a full line of models. And GM will have a $1.3-billion annual marketing budget for each of Chevrolet and Cadillac, double the current ad spend, and close to what Toyota commits to its namesake and Lexus brands. That's crucial, because GM quality and reliability have vastly improved in the past decade (Buick typically tops or is near the top of J.D. Power quality surveys), but GM has lacked the money to tell that story to potential customers that first turned away from GM decades ago. A clean-slate GM has a decent shot at winning customers among Gen Y motorists (ages 22 to 32). At 70 million people, that group is larger than either Gen X or the baby-boom generation. Certainly GM has the J.D. Power- and Consumer Reports-acclaimed vehicles for making converts, including the Chevy Malibu, Impala, HHR and the Cadillac STS sedan.

One of the nice things about not being No. 1 is that rivals aren't all gunning for you. With half the market, GM had the most to lose over the past three decades. Now everyone from Kia Motors to Ford Motor Co. will have Toyota in their sights, instead. And Toyota, which lost more than $1 billion last year, has stumbled badly from overexpansion, several embarrassing recalls, and market-share reversals in Asia. The myth of Toyota's invincibility hasn't been shattered among potential customers. But Detroit finally has an opening to exploit.

And Detroit has a spokesman in Barack Obama, who at a news conference two weeks ago sang the praises of the Ford hybrid parked in his Chicago garage.

"A year or two of Obama emphasizing the restructured GM and Chrysler," U.S. marketing consultant Dennis Keene told Business Week recently, "which he has staked his reputation and taxpayer money on, and you could start to see Gen Y take a lot more interest in these brands and looking at them in a new light."

Alluding to some of the unexpected roles he has taken on as President, Obama joked at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner a few weeks ago that Car & Driver had named him its "CEO of the Year."

We can only hope.

[VivienM]

And, to be sure, it does take a special kind of genius to lose $88 billion (U.S.) over the past four years, to have your shareholder value evaporate during that time from $30 billion to $702 million; lose to Toyota Motor Corp. the crown of world's biggest automaker after a 77-year run as No. 1.

How much money did the financial sector lose?

How much money do they STILL have to lose?

Far more than the auto industry, I'm sure.

Yet they're still getting their bailouts... and with far less political opposition than this one.

[CaptSmethwick]

That Toronto Star article summarized how I view the situation: a reboot that will undo a legacy that made an important domestic industrial sector uncompetitive with companies headquartered offshore.

Interesting discussion you guys have been having on the Lucerne, ES350, CTS, etc. I own an '09 CTS-4 DI and am happy with it. I cross-shopped it against similarly-sized luxury vehicles and the only one that seriously tempted me was the G35x. And I mean seriously tempted by it - frankly, I ended up choosing based on personal preferences alone. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely love the CTS but I would not argue with anybody who suggested that the G35x was the better value or even the better car.

I did not seriously consider the ES350. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this Lexus and it did impress me. Yes, it can accelerate (although not even close to sub 6.0 to 100 km/h. The only way Car and Driver got a 6.2 sec. to 60 mph with this car had to be with a rolling start - even Lexus claims 6.8 secs to 60mph) and it's a fine driver but it's built more for comfort and ride than for handling. I personally think that Lexus relentlessly pursued the perfection of the Buick with this one. To give them credit, they've achieved their goal. No knock against the ES350 - if that's your kind of car, there are few direct competitors - and even fewer that can match its overall polish. Based on what I've seen of the upcoming 2010 Buick Lacrosse/Allure, though, it'll have a more competitive Buick up against it by September.

[Johnny93]

I just bought a Dodge Charger SRT8 and couldn't be happier with it. Great ride, incredible performance, all the toys and a good deal! If you can find one, now's the time.

[ricoboxing]

it's not really a bailout car, but i got my eyes on a pontiac vibe...

im just waiting for my 11 year old tercel to die. just keeps going and going though.

[T-Man]

I just bought a Dodge Charger SRT8 and couldn't be happier with it. Great ride, incredible performance, all the toys and a good deal! If you can find one, now's the time.

Oh, so you're the one I sold that too...lol.

Yes, there are some Orange colours Charger SRT8's I can get my hands on.

[T-Man]

Basic Questions and Answers about the Government Loan money to GM/Chrysler

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idf8H0WoQ2QnSkBkDPaLnclQt6TwD98G4DL81

[weedb0y]

Heck, I just picked one up too.. ;)

No complaints..far better than my previous Acura..and on top better handling as well..

[gilboman]

How much money did the financial sector lose?

How much money do they STILL have to lose?

Far more than the auto industry, I'm sure.

Yet they're still getting their bailouts... and with far less political opposition than this one.

thing is, the ENTIRE financial sector lost out, but not all the Automakers are bankrupt, just the most poorly run automakers (Chrysler and GM)

financial sector got bailouts because it was the the actual entire sector and not just two companies in the sector:lol:

GM and Chrysler were hugely mismanaged and over leverged and made way too many mistakes in past few decades and deserve to be bankrupt and dismantled.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

Heck, I just picked one up too.. ;)

No complaints..far better than my previous Acura..and on top better handling as well..

You just bought a SRT-8? Damn. I'm jealous.

[weedb0y]

You just bought a SRT-8? Damn. I'm jealous.

err no..

Its a premium GM.. guess ;)

[Asad_A203]

^ CTS :cheesygri.


I would for sure buy a bailout car, I know this might sound pretty negative, but I hope the dealers sell these things out below cost and drive the whole resale value down for all GMs. I wouldn't mind getting a Saab or a GMC SUV for winter.

[Kenneth]

If I could pick up a fully optioned CTS-V, for $60k otr I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

There alreadly at they price in Florida, just waiting for the dollar to hit par again.

[blackmoon69]

why not if the deals are good. i bought one myself. nothing wrong with buying a baliout car.

[help_questions]

i wouldn't buy a bailout car.

i just bought 12% of a failing car company.

[VivienM]

thing is, the ENTIRE financial sector lost out, but not all the Automakers are bankrupt, just the most poorly run automakers (Chrysler and GM)

financial sector got bailouts because it was the the actual entire sector and not just two companies in the sector:lol:

GM and Chrysler were hugely mismanaged and over leverged and made way too many mistakes in past few decades and deserve to be bankrupt and dismantled.

The AMERICAN financial sector lost out. Last I checked, CIBC/RBC/TD/etc are running just fine. Hell, many US banks are still fine - it's the big ones (Citi, the investment banks, etc) that got into serious trouble.

The entire AMERICAN auto industry is in trouble. Ford... may not be running out of cash, but that's just because it borrowed more years ago. Their sales/profitability/etc are not much better.

What's the difference?

In both cases, industry-wide cultural factors (greed, a focus on the short term, MBAism, etc) caused an entire country's industry to collapse.

You know what bugs ME, though? I've long been of the view that Wall Street analysts, the Wall Street culture of focusing on quarterly results, etc. destroys American producers of consumer durable goods (including, but not only, cars - when's the last time you saw a US TV maker?). You know, the people who cheer when an MBA CEO cuts quality, increases profits, and the poor suckers who bought the product... well, are stuck with it for 5 years. One reason that Europeans/Asians are more successful in durable goods is that, as far as I can tell, they don't have the same intense echo chamber with those kinds of perverse incentives.

I was HOPING that those CROOKS (who get paid 6-8 figures/year to lecture others on how to cut costs, destroy jobs at home, and otherwise rob the honest customer) would be put out of business by this crisis.

Instead, THEY get bailed out, with zero reform, zero scrutiny, etc. And the auto industry dies... and the honest, hardworking blue collar auto worker loses his/her job.

And GM will be "reborn", producing tiny, pathetic "fuel-efficient" small cars to appease a government now run by car-hating urban metrosexuals. *sigh*

[SkiD]

i wouldn't buy a bailout car.

i just bought 12% of a failing car company.

Pssst..

See post #6

[afici0nad0]

cts-v 6mt. i love this car

[stealth]

i'm not stupid, so why would i base a decision on a car purchase on whether the auto company got gov't assistance or not?

all automakers got/get assisstance (even Toyota/Honda got huge amoutn of $$ to locate here). a car purchase should be based on $$/value/performance/safety/etc..stuff that is actually relevent to the vehicle and ownership experience. not whether the company got govt assistance

+1.

I would have bought one already, except none of the "bailout companies" are offerring something like what I'm looking for (G37 Coupe, 911 Cabriolet, etc.). I would love if Chrysler made a potent, sporty 2+2 but instead I have to choose from either a massive looking muscle car Challenger or an overkill, totally impractical Viper.

[Trowa]

simple answer.

NO.


Its our tax paying money going into these Bail-out companies, why would I want to invest more money in a dying cause?

[MasterXan]

"buy" a bailout car?

we all should be getting one for free

[mr_raider]

Did the gub'ment ever do the math, and check if it was cheaper just to kill GM and put the workers on welfare?

[help_questions]

Did the gub'ment ever do the math, and check if it was cheaper just to kill GM and put the workers on welfare?

no, but they did decide that the auto workers are more important that the thousands and thousands of others who lost their job in other industries that were not saved/bailed out.

The cut have cut auto worker wages in half, and helped twice as many people. But instead, the autoworkers keep their excessive base wages, and taxpayers get to fund their pension.

I will never buy a bailout car, are support the injustice the bailout has bought to regular taxpayers who are seeing their tax dollars fund the pensions of a failing private company

Boycott GM, and Chrysler, and tell everyone to do the same! Us taxpayers have been robbed.

[Engi-Nir]

no, but they did decide that the auto workers are more important that the thousands and thousands of others who lost their job in other industries that were not saved/bailed out.

The cut have cut auto worker wages in half, and helped twice as many people. But instead, the autoworkers keep their excessive base wages, and taxpayers get to fund their pension.

I will never buy a bailout car, are support the injustice the bailout has bought to regular taxpayers who are seeing their tax dollars fund the pensions of a failing private company

Boycott GM, and Chrysler, and tell everyone to do the same! Us taxpayers have been robbed.

Again, from May 2009 sales, people are still not listening, GM is still doing well in comparison.
I think they have made enough quick changes to make something out of the new GM. assuming the government asks more of sr mgmt to take a walk, and introduce new guns that will revise the way GM runs, it would be beneficial. Eitherway, they have a good set of vehicles now and coming.

oh well, it is wait and see, no point in crying our spoiled milk or however that saying goes.

[CUVShopper]

Interesting article today in the National Post:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=ea53fcb3-eab1-4a78-ab8f-236b7af81104

[help_questions]

Again, from May 2009 sales, people are still not listening, GM is still doing well in comparison.
I think they have made enough quick changes to make something out of the new GM. assuming the government asks more of sr mgmt to take a walk, and introduce new guns that will revise the way GM runs, it would be beneficial. Eitherway, they have a good set of vehicles now and coming.

oh well, it is wait and see, no point in crying our spoiled milk or however that saying goes.

But there is a point is objecting to the bailout. Those of us against the bailout can share our opinions, respectfully, with other Canadians, in an effort to show others how we have been stolen from, and promote the rationality of boycotting the big three, and destroy them once and for all before they come after another $10 billion of our tax dollars.

[MasterXan]

Interesting article today in the National Post:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=ea53fcb3-eab1-4a78-ab8f-236b7af81104

great read. everything is true in the article. the overblown unemployment numbers, the "ripple effect" and the unfair playing field between Government Motors and Chrysis vs the rest of the productive companies.

putting tax payer money into these companies is a big mistake.


Again, from May 2009 sales, people are still not listening, GM is still doing well in comparison.
I think they have made enough quick changes to make something out of the new GM. assuming the government asks more of sr mgmt to take a walk, and introduce new guns that will revise the way GM runs, it would be beneficial. Eitherway, they have a good set of vehicles now and coming.

oh well, it is wait and see, no point in crying our spoiled milk or however that saying goes.

it doesn't matter how much they sell. if they are doing so well, they wouldn't need the money.

And the government should not choose who to run the company because the administration has no experience running a car company.

Here's Brian Deese, a 31-year old who has not even stepped into an auto plant, is now part of the auto task force

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01deese.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

anyone else got confidence that the government could run companies?

[sbobcat]

anyone else got confidence that the government could run companies?

Hydro One, OPG, ex-407, Canada Post and city Garbage Picker ,Police (opp). yeah we have confidence.
Vince

[SkiD]

no, but they did decide that the auto workers are more important that the thousands and thousands of others who lost their job in other industries that were not saved/bailed out.

The cut have cut auto worker wages in half, and helped twice as many people. But instead, the autoworkers keep their excessive base wages, and taxpayers get to fund their pension.

I will never buy a bailout car, are support the injustice the bailout has bought to regular taxpayers who are seeing their tax dollars fund the pensions of a failing private company

Boycott GM, and Chrysler, and tell everyone to do the same! Us taxpayers have been robbed.

Govt. helped out the auto industry in Ontario just as it has helped out the forestry industry in BC, Farmers in the Prairies, Quebec in general and fishermen in the Maritimes (and of course many other examples). They can't save all jobs, but they try to save large chunks to impress the voters.

If the govt. didn't bail out the automakers and a hundred thousand people lost their jobs, what do you think would happen in the next election?

The concessions by the unions mean that their 'excessive' base wages are the same as Toyota and Honda workers, are you complaining about that?

The pension problem should have never been allowed to happen in the first place by the govt., so now they have to make up for it (Pensions should always be run by a third party and funded properly to avoid this).

Choosing not to buy a car from Chrysler/GM is your decision. For those of us with more common sense, there are many other reasons to use when deciding on the right vehicle.

A question for all those complaining about bailout money, what is your stance on 'cash for junkers'. Would you take advantage of using tax payers money to get $5000 off the price on a new car?

[kingrukus]

Sure, Ill gladly pay 25k OTR for an '09 Cadillac CTS w/ DI motor & 6 speed manual transmission :D

[MasterXan]

A question for all those complaining about bailout money, what is your stance on 'cash for junkers'. Would you take advantage of using tax payers money to get $5000 off the price on a new car?

dumbest idea ever, almost as dumb as supporting the HST because we're getting $1000 in return.

Why should the government stimulate people to buy cars in this economic climate? some people already paid off their car loans and the government wants these people to start borrowing again. when these people default on their car loans because they were stimulated by this $5000 offer, is the government gonna bail out those people too?

[CaptSmethwick]

But there is a point is objecting to the bailout. Those of us against the bailout can share our opinions, respectfully, with other Canadians, in an effort to show others how we have been stolen from, and promote the rationality of boycotting the big three, and destroy them once and for all before they come after another $10 billion of our tax dollars.

I think you forgot to add "muhaha" and some kind of maniacally evil smilie at the end of your post.

At the end of the day, though, everybody is most definitely entitled to expressing their principles and beliefs - regardless of how irrational and obsessive that expression might seem to others.

[VivienM]

Why should the government stimulate people to buy cars in this economic climate?

To try and stop the spiral that you're encouraging?

Let's see - lousy economic climate -> delaying big purchases -> people selling/making those things lose their jobs -> they cut back on their spending -> people who were selling them stuff lose their jobs -> more cutbacks on spending -> etc.

At the end of the day, if everybody is buying nothing but food and shelter, that's a HUGE segment of the economy that's going to lose their jobs.

[User Name]

Hydro One, OPG, ex-407, Canada Post and city Garbage Picker ,Police (opp). yeah we have confidence.
Vince

You forgot eHealth.



A question for all those complaining about bailout money, what is your stance on 'cash for junkers'. Would you take advantage of using tax payers money to get $5000 off the price on a new car?

At least with 5k off, I would have a chance to share in this bailout bonanza, and my purchase will help stimulate the economy. GM/Chrysler are gonna take our money and piss it down the drain and either go tits up later, or just ask for more money when that time comes.

[lucretius]

Just curious if others plan to avoid GM and Chrysler products post bankruptcy?


I plan to avoid GM and Chrysler products. But it has nothing to do with the manufacturers. I just never liked GM or Chrysler dealerships.

[MasterXan]

Interesting view of the whole sitution. will the government play fairly with Ford?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNjGb61ufv8

[SkiD]

You forgot eHealth.



At least with 5k off, I would have a chance to share in this bailout bonanza, and my purchase will help stimulate the economy. GM/Chrysler are gonna take our money and piss it down the drain and either go tits up later, or just ask for more money when that time comes.

Where exactly do you think bailout money goes? In the CEO's pocket?
There are no 'shareholders' anymore that are receiving dividends on their stock holdings from profits and managment salaries and bonuses were slashed. Maybe the CEO is hiding money in his mattress.

Is there a difference between
taxpayer -> govt. -> GM/Chrysler -> workers/part suppliers/etc. -> local businesses/local govt./etc. -> workers -> govt.

and
taxpayer -> govt. -> car dealer -> workers -> local business/local govt. -> workers -> govt.