Rumour Mill: Gm to halt plans on Volt- lay-offs this week?

[MacGuffin]

Does anyone know how much money would be needed to actually save GM?

I mean, it is not done by simply giving them a bazillion bucks once, because that would be burned away again in a few months and none of the problems would be solved. None whatswoever. It would be like keeping a patient artificially alive in ICU against all common sense.

To save GM in its current state, it would need a constant cash flow on a very high level for years to come. And we're talking about billions per month here. It also would send the wrong signal. Companies that are in trouble because of their own activities, or rather inactivities, mustn't be kept alive against all better judgement. Or else you create a precedent for other companies that suffer from mismanagement, too.

And let's be honest: The coming Obama administration will have to deal with much bigger problems, than saving a company, that went bust not because of the current financial crisis, but because of its own inability.

I mean, it's not like GM (or Ford or Chrysler) is a victim of the current crisis. The crisis only sped things up. Let's not forget that.

Today I watched a political discussion about this topic on TV and a correspondent from Washington said: "They can sue me if they want but it's an open secret here, that GM has been unofficially bankrupt already for years."

[Spectre]

Money can't fix GM. Even if you gave it access to unlimited funds, it would still continue to fail. They need to dump the destructive and suicidal UAW (how can you get quality up when there's a guy you can't fire leaving Pepsi and beer cans inside door panels??) and flush out about 90% of management.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Obama administration plus the Democrat Congress will actually try throwing money at the problem, as the unions spent FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS getting them into office this time around.

Also, I think that Chrysler is less a victim of itself and more a victim of piss-poor Mercedes management that completely misunderstood the US market and plundered the company. Pre-Mercedes, Chrysler was the most profitable US maker, IIRC, and they had a huge cash reserve they were sitting on.

[MacGuffin]

Originally Posted by Spectre

Also, I think that Chrysler is less a victim of itself and more a victim of piss-poor Mercedes management that completely misunderstood the US market and plundered the company. Pre-Mercedes, Chrysler was the most profitable US maker, IIRC, and they had a huge cash reserve they were sitting on.

I don't know about pre-Mercedes but I know for fact, that Mercedes sent their best managers and engineers over to Chrysler and spent an awful lot of money in the attempt to bring Chrysler models up to European standards. In fact they concentrated so much on Chrysler, that suddenly Mercedes-Benz was getting into trouble over quality and reliability issues.

You and others say that a solution for Ford and GM would simply be to "go European" and offer their European GM and Ford models in the USA. Chrysler, however, never had that option, because they have no European branch. The only option was to bring their U.S. models up to a higher standard in technology and quality - which didn't really work.

So I agree that the whole takeover of Chrysler (which was sold as a merger at first) was a huge mistake of former Daimler chairman Jürgen Schrempp. It lead Mercedes-Benz into trouble and as a result BMW and Audi could catch up with Mercedes.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

I don't know about pre-Mercedes but I know for fact, that Mercedes sent their best managers and engineers over to Chrysler and spent an awful lot of money in the attempt to bring Chrysler models up to European standards. In fact they concentrated so much on Chrysler, that suddenly Mercedes-Benz was getting into trouble over quality and reliability issues.

So they did, but they screwed up their product planning in the US royally. No Chrysler exec would have approved the Nitro, the Caliber, or the Compass. They certainly wouldn't have approved the Aspen. Letting the PT Cruiser languish wouldn't have happened under Chrysler either.

Their quality issues date to pre-DCX. Remember when they discontinued the W201 190E? They said then that with the advent of the then-new C-class, Mercedes was no longer going to "overengineer" or "overbuild" their cars, in the name of higher volume sales. That was 1993.

The DCX merger didn't happen until 1998. And by then, Mercedes quality was in the crapper.

Merc quality tanking had *NOTHING* to do with Chrysler. Sorry, this one's an all-German screwup.

You and others say that a solution for Ford and GM would simply be to "go European" and offer their European GM and Ford models in the USA. Chrysler, however, never had that option, because they have no European branch. The only option was to bring their U.S. models up to a higher standard in technology and quality - which didn't really work.

Chrysler quality *declined* under Mercedes.

And their product lineup was acceptable, unlike Ford and GM. The LH cars were a long way ahead of their domestic cousins and were actually competing well with things like the Camry and Accord, for example. The Dodge Neon did well against the Civic and Corolla, etc., etc.

Chrysler didn't need to "go European." GM and Ford still do.

So I agree that the whole takeover of Chrysler (which was sold as a merger at first) was a huge mistake of former Daimler chairman Jürgen Schrempp.

On this we agree, that was a HUGE mistake on his part.

It lead Mercedes-Benz into trouble and as a result BMW and Audi could catch up with Mercedes.

No, see above.

This is not to say that Chrysler was actually on par with Toyota or Merc - they clearly weren't - but they weren't all that far behind. They had solid product and were doing okay. Merc took advantage of Chrysler's undervalued shares and low market cap and raided the place, taking the $8 billion cash reserve in the process. Then there was the Parts Extortion issue.

See, at M-B as with most companies one division buying a part from another division pays cost - what it cost the sourcing division to make it. This applies across their truck and car lines, including Smart. Except for Chrysler, which had to pay FULL RETAIL PRICE for any part they used from the rest of the Mercedes family. Nice, huh? This should tell you how M-B managed Chrysler and what they thought of that division.

Basically, all MB wanted Chrysler for was to exploit it and dump when they were done with it.

[MacGuffin]

The next hammer blow on the head of GM:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...y29bTJgmENzmyQ

[2Billion]

Spectre touched on some of the stuff GM needs to do, especially in terms of getting rid of redundant marques and models, but I wonder if some of those things could just be sold. For instance, Buick is useless to GM, but I can see perhaps Hyundai wanting a luxury brand with a bit of built in cred. Throw a few idled factories in the deal so Hyundai has somewhere to build them, and everyone wins. Pontiac is less desirable, so I can't imagine who would want it - I suppose the Chinese could use the brand if they want to break into the American market - but they certainly can't keep it around, doing what little that they're doing. They need the money and clearly are unable to keep their entire bloated range updated and profitable.

I'm not sure if that would actually work, just thinking out loud.

[C53A_4G63T]

President-elect Barack Obama responded to the plea by saying in his first post-election news conference that he is placing "a high priority" on helping the auto industry during his preparations to assume office on January 20.

Not really going to do fuck all if GM can not last till the end of December. Just let the horse die.

[Ezbok58a]

Originally Posted by Spectre

So they did, but they screwed up their product planning in the US royally. No Chrysler exec would have approved the Nitro, the Caliber, or the Compass. They certainly wouldn't have approved the Aspen. Letting the PT Cruiser languish wouldn't have happened under Chrysler either.

Chrysler quality *declined* under Mercedes.

And their product lineup was acceptable, unlike Ford and GM. The LH cars were a long way ahead of their domestic cousins and were actually competing well with things like the Camry and Accord, for example. The Dodge Neon did well against the Civic and Corolla, etc., etc.

No, see above.

This is not to say that Chrysler was actually on par with Toyota or Merc - they clearly weren't - but they weren't all that far behind. They had solid product and were doing okay. Merc took advantage of Chrysler's undervalued shares and low market cap and raided the place, taking the $8 billion cash reserve in the process. Then there was the Parts Extortion issue.

Basically, all MB wanted Chrysler for was to exploit it and dump when they were done with it.

What land do you live in that Chrysler was the best of the three before Mercedes bought them?

The LH cars had a 80% chance of being piles of garbage, the v6 kept eating head gaskets and had oil sludge issues.

Chrylser Transmissions before Mercedes either lasted 200K or ate themselves after 80K, there was no inbetween with that. Either the trans lasted over 80k or it didn't.

The only reason Chrysler could've been in first is because 98 was the year Ford's Firestone Explorer fiasco came to light, that really put a hurting on Ford.

And while we're on the topic of Ford, Nasser was nothing but a douche... he's the reason Fords in as dire shape as it is. (apart from the economy that is...)

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by Ezbok58a

What land do you live in that Chrysler was the best of the three before Mercedes bought them?

The LH cars had a 80% chance of being piles of garbage, the v6 kept eating head gaskets and had oil sludge issues.

Chrylser Transmissions before Mercedes either lasted 200K or ate themselves after 80K, there was no inbetween with that. Either the trans lasted over 80k or it didn't.

The only reason Chrysler could've been in first is because 98 was the year Ford's Firestone Explorer fiasco came to light, that really put a hurting on Ford.

And while we're on the topic of Ford, Nasser was nothing but a douche... he's the reason Fords in as dire shape as it is. (apart from the economy that is...)

Are you also forgetting the fact that every Ford truck from 1992-on has a distressing tendency to set itself on fire? Followed by the Duraspark boxes that didn't? And the astounding shittiness that was the ovoid Tauri? Let's also not forget the headgasket destroying 3.8L Ford V6, the wretched for AXOD, which WOULDN'T go 80K on a regular basis, and those really awful "pleather" Mercury interiors.

The LH cars were nowhere as bad as you claim. Aside from their weak transaxles, they were actually quite good for what they were. The other issue with them was the Mitsubishi sourced base V6s in them. If you got the "big" engine, you got a Chrysler V6, not a Mitsu V6. The 3.5 didn't have problems with the head gaskets, the later non-Mitsu 3.3 didn't either. Oil gelling was a Mitsu engine issue, but a lot of people had problems with that, not least of which was Toyota and even in a few cases Mercedes. The good news is that almost nobody got the base 2.5/2.7 V6 engine in the LH cars. I see more early LH cars driving around Dallas than I see Crown Vics or Tauri from the same era.

Nobody is pretending that Chrysler was perfect. They were, however, the best of the Big Three at the time of the takeover.

[GRtak]

The whole reason GM got rid of Oldsmobile is "OLD". A simple PR exercise which failed. Does anyone remember what happened when GM dumped the Oldsmobile brand? It lost sales. It didn't help the company at all, that decision is still costing the company money in lost sales. The moves that should have been made at the time (much sooner) weren't made. GMC should have gotten out of the light truck market long ago. The cars that share platforms should have been more distinctive to distingiush the individual brands. There should be a brand recognition, a luxury, "sporty", performance, and a "family" brand, maybe even a grandma's brand. If they would have defined each brand instead of trying to make them all be all things, GM would be in a much better place.


But none of that is what this thread is about. GM has apperantly said they will be making the Volt, at least that is what they told my local news channel. That is of course if they can stay in bussiness.

[argatoga]

Looks like GM will continue to putter by just outside of bankruptcy. Not a surprise coming from our current government.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/11/w...llion-could-c/

Word on the street is that President elect Barack Obama spent some time in the oval office yesterday with current President Bush talking about the auto industry, and the junior Senator from Illinois urged the President to address the automakers' dire situation post haste. The President seems to be on the same page, with word coming out of the White House that it would consider a congressional proposal to carve out $25 billion of the nation's $700 billion bailout plan just for the auto industry. That's in addition to the already approved $25 billion worth of low-interest loans to automakers, the distribution of which may also get sped up considerably. Those low-interest loans may even get restrictions lifted that were to ensure they be spent on green cars and retooling factories, but now may be used for anything the domestic automakers deem most prudent. Nothing's final until it goes though Congress and gets the President's approval, but it would seem the considerable squawking coming from General Motors for federal aid has reached the ears of those who may actually do something about it. Whether they should or not is still an open debate.

Originally Posted by GRtak

The cars that share platforms should have been more distinctive to distingiush the individual brands. There should be a brand recognition, a luxury, "sporty", performance, and a "family" brand, maybe even a grandma's brand. If they would have defined each brand instead of trying to make them all be all things, GM would be in a much better place.

The problem GM is having with this is the dealers. It wasn't GM who wanted the Aveo as Pontiac but the fuckwit dealers who wanted a low cost shitmobile.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The problem is that Obama/Bush aren't saving GM, they're saving the UAW.

[Labcoatguy]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

The problem is that Obama/Bush aren't saving GM, they're saving the UAW.

Yep; as they're seeing it, "OMG VOTES".

[MacGuffin]

25 billion is ridiculous anyway... the "big three" are currently losing this amount of money within 3 months...

[Electric-Mayhem]

I'm really split on this one. Most of me really wants GM to just die and let us get on with it. I agree with most of us here that we the taxpayers shouldn't have to bail out GM after their horrid decision making and failure, even if we might (doubt it) get that money back in the future. Despite my liberal leanings, I am against Unions in general and definitely against the UAW and their BS tactics. If GM or one of the other big three goes, then I imagine so would the UAW.

The other part of me is really worried about what the collapse of GM is going to do to this country. It would instantly throw the unemployment rate up and would have repercussions fairly wide reaching throughout the manufacturing world. I was listening to NPR, and there is a firm that was analyzing the situation with this, and was saying that even with a government bailout, that its pretty likely that 30-40,000 people will get laid off (this includes support jobs like people who make the parts for GM). They said up to 1.5million jobs if one the companies collapses.

So yeah, that's a big deal if you ask me. Its a really bad situation with this one too. Either the government has to throw a ton of money at them to keep them afloat, or a huge part of the manufacturing business dies and lots and lots of people loose their jobs, and the economy tanks even more.

From a personal standpoint, there are some cars that I would be sad to see go, the Corvette being the biggest one. Hummer can die a grisly death, but there are some truly great models with lots of heritage that I would be sad to see go. I think for me to support this, I would need to see some major trimming down of the model range, and the brand range. Absolutely no reason to make three version of a body that fits over the same chassis and general interior. Let the people dumb enough to believe that its three separate cars get sad and find out that its the same thing, it couldn't make it much worse then it is now. I think what someone said earlier about keeping Chevy, Cadillac and Saturn. Keep the trucks for utility, pushing the hybrid small cars (using what you have instead of redesigning something again) and make sure your luxury brand holds up to the world standard of what that means.

Seems easy, remains to be seen whether is executable or whether the people who actually make these changes agree with all of us.

JH

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

25 billion is ridiculous anyway... the "big three" are currently losing this amount of money within 3 months...

And by big three you mean GM. Ford has nearly $30 billion in the bank and lost $150 million last quarter. Chrysler is owned by a private firm with a lot of capital.