Jump to content

Big News at 2:30 EST


Recommended Posts

Good. Now we can move on to talking about the bailout required in April/May.

I guess we will have to wait to see the details, but it sounds like the money that was meant for retooling for fuel efficient cars (if you believed that) has just been spent to survive another four months. I'd say that they just ate their future, but I'm pretty sure that happened a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc that have plants here are going to complain they aren't getting a piece of the pie?

Let them go to their own government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote has been put off until December so that GM Ford and Chrysler can have a detailed explanation for what they will actually do with the money. Regarding foreign makers, if the US companies get a bailout one will almost certainly befall the German makers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legislators want to see some sort of "plan" from the automakers with how they're going to spend the money, but the only thing that's going to happen is that money is going to keep them afloat until their costs go down so that they can make money again. What more do they want other than what GM already has planned?

GM should just go bankrupt so it can get rid of all its costs, then ask the government for a $25 billion "restart" loan... $25 billion should be enough money to make 20-25 world-class products.

GM would be amazing if it had best-in-class Malibu, Cruze, Silverado, Traverse, Equinox, Aveo, Corvette, Camaro, CTS, STS, Alpha Cadillac, SRX, XLR, 7-Series competitor, etc. That's only 14, they'd still have money for 6+ more models. This is why GM probably is best off getting down to 3-4 brands. That's a lot of products and it doesn't even include all of Cadillac and Chevy. There still needs to be money left over for Pontiac, Buick, GMC, and Saturn, which is why Pontiac is becoming expensive Chevy cars and GMC are more expensive Chevy trucks. Even Buick isn't becoming anything besides fancy Chevy's (but they are unique, at least), and Saturn is just Opel... really GM is only investing money in 2 1/2 or 3 brands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The legislators want to see some sort of "plan" from the automakers with how they're going to spend the money, but the only thing that's going to happen is that money is going to keep them afloat until their costs go down so that they can make money again. What more do they want other than what GM already has planned?

so i guess we need to fax them the minutes from the past few UAW meetings and GM's "homework" will be done then

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting a plan is reasonable, I knew they would want one. I don't know why Red Ink Rick thought he didn't need a plan and they would just fork over the money. What the 3 CEOs failed to do is explain how they will pay the money back. All they did was try to scare Congress and say jobs would be lost if we don't get money. They need to present a real recovery plan, unfortunately, I don't think they have one.

Northstar is right about needed to get down to 3-4 brands and 25 solid models. I said that years ago, but everyone argued that Pontiac and Buick have such great history and we can't get rid of them. They need class leaders, not 20 front drive generics and 20 mid-size SUVs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good. Now we can move on to talking about the bailout required in April/May.

I guess we will have to wait to see the details, but it sounds like the money that was meant for retooling for fuel efficient cars (if you believed that) has just been spent to survive another four months. I'd say that they just ate their future, but I'm pretty sure that happened a long time ago.

Hey genius, it kind of is their plan, or did you forget about the Volt, Cruze, Chrysler's subcompact, and Ford's retooling of truck plants to build small cars. So yes, it is to be believed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wanting a plan is reasonable, I knew they would want one. I don't know why Red Ink Rick thought he didn't need a plan and they would just fork over the money.

Actually Wagoneer played this brilliantly. If he came with a plan, congress would have wanted yet another loop to jump through. This part of "negotiating" is taught in the last week of MBA school. You have something to look forward to!

Seriously the posters here may be up to there eye balls in the minutia of the turn around plans, but would congress be so "into it". Imagine if the bailout was for the light-bulb industry. How many of us would feel confident without some hand holding by the bright guys at the bulb industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The vote has been put off until December so that GM Ford and Chrysler can have a detailed explanation for what they will actually do with the money. Regarding foreign makers, if the US companies get a bailout one will almost certainly befall the German makers.

Democratic leaders in the house and senate shut it down because a bipartisan agreement that the administration supported was reached without their approval.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi to Auto Industry: Show Us a Plan for Viability

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House and Senate Democratic leaders held a news conference this afternoon in the Capitol to discuss aid to the domestic auto industry. Below are the Speaker's opening remarks:

"Thank you very much, Mr. Leader. I wish to associate myself with your

remarks because I think that you have clearly laid out what the

challenge is to our economy, to the auto industry and to Congress as we

go forth.

"It is all about accountability and about viability. Until we can see a

plan where the auto industry is held accountable and a plan for

viability on how they go into the future, until they show us the plan,

we cannot show them the money.

"And that is really where we are with this. I want to join the Leader

in saluting those who have worked so hard on this, and add to that our

Michigan delegation in the House of Representatives.

"The auto industry is very important to our country. It is essential,

its survival is essential, to maintaining our industrial and

manufacturing base. That industrial base is essential to our national

security. So, for reasons of our national security, for reasons that

relate to the health of our financial community, and for reasons that relate to the needs of the workers who will be affected by this, it is

essential that we see some restructuring, some path to viability, from

the auto industry.

"The Leader addressed what that meant in a timetable. I know Leader

Hoyer will adjust that as well so I won't go into that. But again, we

reject those who are advocating bankruptcy for the industry. We reject

that. But we do want to work together, and I don't think we saw very

much in the hearings of the last few days that gave us the confidence

that we can act upon it legislatively.

"Hopefully, in another week or two, we can see a plan that can take us

viably into the future with accountability to the American people before

we spend another dollar of their tax dollars. Thank you, Mr. Leader."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Wagoneer played this brilliantly. If he came with a plan, congress would have wanted yet another loop to jump through.

He didn't play it well at all, he should have said we need X amount of money and we will do A, B, and C to make sure that we pay it back. GM is going to have to file for bankruptcy in January, they have zero time to negotiate or play games with Congress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't play it well at all, he should have said we need X amount of money and we will do A, B, and C to make sure that we pay it back. GM is going to have to file for bankruptcy in January, they have zero time to negotiate or play games with Congress.

:soapbox:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I kind of figured this would happen. I'm not entirely sure how this will pan out, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder if GM is going to get their money. Even if they produce a good "plan", I have this fear that this is going to get bogged down in some really grotesque political battle between Polosi on the left, not wanting to touch the oh so sacred DOE monies and the Republicans on the right not wanting to touch the already ridiculous $700 Billion TARP monies. Finger pointing and political grandstanding will ultimately kill any chances that these companies have on what are essentially just cheap loans from the Govt because they can't get them through traditional banks. Unfortunately I don't really think this has too much to do with "Detroit", and more to do with bipartisan finger pointing and politics as usual, indecisive Washington bull$h!.

I'm feeling slightly pessimistic right now - I think they may be doomed. Not because of anything they did, but because our fearless leaders are really just a bunch of stupid asses.

Who knows - this all just seems like a gigantic circus right now to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that any workable "plan" will involve many times the 25 Billion offered and would still involve tens of thousands of lost jobs big three jobs. And if the multiplier that the automakers have been pushing is true, that means perhaps a million jobs lost. Who wants to pay for that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey genius, it kind of is their plan, or did you forget about the Volt, Cruze, Chrysler's subcompact, and Ford's retooling of truck plants to build small cars. So yes, it is to be believed.

It doesn't take a genius to do some simple math, so please try to keep up. ;)

GM is losing ~2.5 Billion per month and it is getting worse. If GM gets 10-12 of the 25 Billion that buys them another ~4 months of <survival>, not retooling.

As for the Volt, selling a vehicle at a loss is not the kind of thing that GM needs right now. It was a fun PR stunt, but they need to get real. If they had put that effort into the Cruze it could have been on sale in the US right away instead of the current plan for TWO years from now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait though - do they want a "plan" so that they get part of the $700 B TARP money, or a "plan" and then they release the DOE money early? Or do they get both?

I'd be surprised if they could get more than the $25 billion. If they show the real cost the government will choke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait though - do they want a "plan" so that they get part of the $700 B TARP money, or a "plan" and then they release the DOE money early? Or do they get both?

I think that eventually they would get both. However, is there an "eventually" if action/money doesn't come soon?

The next administration has made some pretty strong statements of support. I suppose it is possible that Ford and Chrysler will limp through till then but GM will go down during the holiday Sanson!!! :toiletpaper:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one have never been a fan of Wagoneer, but many on this site have been and so I have kept quite, yet while I sent the following out to friends and family to support the Auto Loans, I have since had a change of heart after seeing that only the Chrysler CEO was willing to work for a dollar a day and non of them would be willing to give up their private corporate Jet, let alone why not share one jet to go to DC or take commercial transport.

The UAW is a legacy part of the over all problem, but the existing executive staff is the other problem. They still think they are supperior to everyone else and a class above. If they really cared about the companies, the jobs and America they would be willing to giveup their perks to save money and find a better way to deal with this issue. As it stands, I see 3 greedy CEO's that Need to Go!

Myth No. 1

Nobody buys their vehicles.

Reality

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.

Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.

Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.

Myth No. 2

They build unreliable junk.

Reality

The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.

Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.

Myth No. 3

They build gas-guzzlers.

Reality

All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

Myth No. 4

They already got a $25-billion bailout.

Reality

None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now.

Myth No. 5

GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

Reality

The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

Myth No. 6

They don't build hybrids.

Reality

The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009. This also does not include the early electric Auto’s that GM had built and leased in the late 90’s but could not get sold outside of California.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"GM is losing ~2.5 Billion per month and it is getting worse. "<<

GM has stated they expect current costs of 2B to drop closer to 1B by the end of the year in light of the budget-related delays, postphonements, closures, etc. If that comes to pass, 25B would last them 2 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have since had a change of heart after seeing that only the Chrysler CEO was willing to work for a dollar a day

thats because he would be getting a pay raise.

On August 5, 2007, he became chairman and CEO of the newly privatized Chrysler. His current annual salary at Chrysler is $1, with other compensation not publicly disclosed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nardelli

when you get a $210 million severance package do you really ever need to be on payroll again in your life?

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"GM is losing ~2.5 Billion per month and it is getting worse. "<<

GM has stated they expect current costs of 2B to drop closer to 1B by the end of the year in light of the budget-related delays, postphonements, closures, etc. If that comes to pass, 25B would last them 2 years.

But $25 billion is for Ford, Chrysler and GM combined, GM gets $11-13 billion if this thing actually passes. So it buys them one year, if Wagoner is right and they burn $1 billion a month. If they can't stop the cash burn, it only delays the inevitable, and they just wasted $12 billion of tax payer money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was expecting to get on here and rant about the government.

But this actually sounds pretty reasonable. GM & Co. DO need a plan and FOCUS That's one of the reasons they're in this situation, is that they haven't had a real "plan" in years.

That said, I still believe that all of Washington is self-serving scum that isn't worth the &#036;h&#33; I scrape off my boots at night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"GM is losing ~2.5 Billion per month and it is getting worse. "<<

GM has stated they expect current costs of 2B to drop closer to 1B by the end of the year in light of the budget-related delays, postphonements, closures, etc. If that comes to pass, 25B would last them 2 years.

What $2 Billion costs? Did you mean monthly losses? Source?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Numerous news pieces have stated GM is spending around $2B/mnth to operate, and Rick stated he expected that to be more like $1B @ years's end. I got the impression the DC trip was an issue of day-to-day liquidity, and without a check operations would have to cease because revenue was comparitively & unsustainably low. You can't make money off vehicles if you cannot afford to pay to have them built in the first place.

Incorrect?

Edited by balthazar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mean "can't make money"

Numerous news pieces have stated GM is spending around $2B/mnth to operate, and Rick stated he expected that to be more like $1B @ years's end. I got the impression the DC trip was an issue of day-to-day liquidity, and without a check operations would have to cease because revenue was comparitively & unsustainably low. You can make money off vehicles if you cannot afford to pay to have them built in the first place.

Incorrect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it's amazing how stupid the general public is when it comes to our auto industry. Reading some of the comments about this debacle on websites like CNN and the NY Times makes me want to drink myself into a puking mess. So many people out there ranting about how the Big 3 produces junk and how they need to just go bankrupt, etc, etc...I knew it was bad, but I didn't really think it would be as bad as it is.

Of course, my guess is that it's probably the same ass holes posting similar comments on multiple message boards. I'm sure that at the end of the day, most Americans simply don't care, and probably don't post anything (and/or don't have a real opinion either way).

You know, the way I look at things - even if I wasn't a car nut, and even if I drove an import (well, my wife does), I still would want to give these companies a chance - (we're giving companies like AIG an opportunity, and over the last 8 years we've let Halliburton essentially get all the business it wants thanks to the Iraq War). Common sense would tell me that the Big 3 spend untold billions of dollars on engineering and technology, IT products, parts, people, etc, etc. to make it worth at least trying to prop them up (financially) now so that they can make it through the recession and pop out on the other side. Wouldn't it be cheaper on society, given the size and complexity of these companies, to let them keep going as operating interests, as opposed to having thousands upon thousands of people suddenly on unemployment?

Moreover, I think anyone half paying attention, even outside of being a car industry nut, would at least notice that the Big 3 are starting to produce viable, competitive products? I mean, don't people drive around and see the cars around them in traffic? Lets face it, what's the real honest to God difference between a Honda, a Hyundai, a Malibu and a Ford Fusion?? That's right - as Andrew Dice Clay would say, "what's the f@#king difference?" - because there really isn't any. But ask the common Joe on the street these days, and you'd think the Asians are building their cars out of gold or something.

Like we've all mentioned before, it's a gigantic perception problem that the Big 3 face, and it's absolutely awful when I see it manifest itself on the comment boards by the general populace. In a strange sort of way, I see simply writing off the Big 3 car makers, their history, and their recent accomplishments almost as a slap in the face for the United States.

Helping out the auto industry is another way to help feed the economy from the bottom up, which in some academic circles, is considered paramount to a successful economic recovery for the United States.

Edited by gmcbob
Link to post
Share on other sites
The legislators want to see some sort of "plan" from the automakers with how they're going to spend the money, but the only thing that's going to happen is that money is going to keep them afloat until their costs go down so that they can make money again. What more do they want other than what GM already has planned?

GM should just go bankrupt so it can get rid of all its costs, then ask the government for a $25 billion "restart" loan... $25 billion should be enough money to make 20-25 world-class products.

GM would be amazing if it had best-in-class Malibu, Cruze, Silverado, Traverse, Equinox, Aveo, Corvette, Camaro, CTS, STS, Alpha Cadillac, SRX, XLR, 7-Series competitor, etc. That's only 14, they'd still have money for 6+ more models. This is why GM probably is best off getting down to 3-4 brands. That's a lot of products and it doesn't even include all of Cadillac and Chevy. There still needs to be money left over for Pontiac, Buick, GMC, and Saturn, which is why Pontiac is becoming expensive Chevy cars and GMC are more expensive Chevy trucks. Even Buick isn't becoming anything besides fancy Chevy's (but they are unique, at least), and Saturn is just Opel... really GM is only investing money in 2 1/2 or 3 brands.

If GM can simply pare down dealerships and consolidate the sales channels, I see NO REASON why Pontiac and Buick shouldn't exist, paired with chevy. Pontiac can live on 3 models.....Solstice, G6, G8. The G8 is already exceptional. The RWD is their distinguishing card. The G6 when redesigned can be similarly high performing. Buick can survive on 2 or 3 sedans, and maybe 1 or 2 crossovers. A 4 place hardtop convertible for buick would be nice but a luxury. Some folks want a bridge product between chevy and cadillac. Caddys are too spendy for someone who doesn't want a 'basic car' like a Chevy or Toyota. Folding Buick and Pontiac into chevy means chevy doesn't just sell cheap either. The impala is a the top chevy, but the bottom bookend for the pontiac and buick extensions.

If done correctly, the key is dealer consolidation. But don't kill the brands. My God, we have like 10 Asian brands and its all the same sht, i see no reason why we can't maintain 6-8 models of pontiac and buick folded into chevy. Build buick and pontiac sales on all the showroom traffic chevy gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one have never been a fan of Wagoneer, but many on this site have been and so I have kept quite, yet while I sent the following out to friends and family to support the Auto Loans, I have since had a change of heart after seeing that only the Chrysler CEO was willing to work for a dollar a day and non of them would be willing to give up their private corporate Jet, let alone why not share one jet to go to DC or take commercial transport.

The UAW is a legacy part of the over all problem, but the existing executive staff is the other problem. They still think they are supperior to everyone else and a class above. If they really cared about the companies, the jobs and America they would be willing to giveup their perks to save money and find a better way to deal with this issue. As it stands, I see 3 greedy CEO's that Need to Go!

Myth No. 1

Nobody buys their vehicles.

Reality

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.

Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.

Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.

Myth No. 2

They build unreliable junk.

Reality

The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.

Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.

Myth No. 3

They build gas-guzzlers.

Reality

All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

Myth No. 4

They already got a $25-billion bailout.

Reality

None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now.

Myth No. 5

GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

Reality

The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

Myth No. 6

They don't build hybrids.

Reality

The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009. This also does not include the early electric Auto’s that GM had built and leased in the late 90’s but could not get sold outside of California.

great post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Numerous news pieces have stated GM is spending around $2B/mnth to operate, and Rick stated he expected that to be more like $1B @ years's end. I got the impression the DC trip was an issue of day-to-day liquidity, and without a check operations would have to cease because revenue was comparitively & unsustainably low. You can't make money off vehicles if you cannot afford to pay to have them built in the first place.

Incorrect?

Revenue has been "unsustainably low" for GM for a long time. Much longer than this current financial crisis. Also GM doesn't make money off of vehicles even if they can afford to pay to have them built. That's been true for many years now.

The trip is to get as much money off the tax payer as they can to buy them a few more months until they try again. In this case I suspect it is so they can survive until Obama is in power and they can try off him.

The problem is, as far as I can tell the $2 Billion/month loss isn't telling the whole story. GM took a 13+ Billion VEBA write-down this Q. They can't do that next Q. Without that the loss on the Q would have been closer to 16 Billion on the Q or over 5 Billion/month.

I doubt they are going to get down to 1 billion/month loss this Q... especially considering the much lower revenue numbers that are coming. It is possible they have another special charge they can use, but it don't think that changes the reality behind the numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Myth No. 2

They build unreliable junk.

Reality

The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.

Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.

They build very average cars. For some people that is fine. Some people want better than average.

Where to start?

1) Quality is not Reliability. I'll write that one more time. Quality is not Reliability. That is even more true when you intentionally focus only on the FIRST 3 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP.

2) J.D. Powers isn't independent. They exist based on the revenue they get for selling their studies. i.e. They exist because GM, Ford, etc. give them money.

3) The Ford study was created and paid for by Ford, for Ford. So it was definitely not independent. Plus it focused on initial quality not long term reliability. Plus Ford still lost to Honda and Toyota, just not statistically.

Myth No. 3

They build gas-guzzlers.

Reality

All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

I'd like you to read your post again. Highway. Highway. Highway. Highway. City is what matters. Focusing on highway is like focusing on 3 month Quality instead of long-term reliability. Ford/GM are focusing on the area where they are close to competitive regardless of the relative importance. That is because they can't seem to compete were it is important, likely because that is where their competitors are working on improving.

Next time when you are making fuel economy claims please actually list the numbers. In the meantime, here are some real-world numbers for you:

Model/City/Highway/Overall

2008 Cobalt 16/34/24

2009 Focus 18/35/26

2008 Civic 18/43/28

2009 Corolla 23/40/32

Since you mentioned it, the 2009 Ford Focus MT gets 20/37/29. It doesn't beat the Corolla AT. For some reason there is currently no 2009 Corolla MT, but if (when?) it does exist it should be >20% more efficient than the Focus MT. This is one of your shining examples?

4cyl Sedans:

2009 Fusion 15/32/23

2009 Malibu 15/34/23

2009 Accord 15/34/23

2009 Camry 16/36/24

2009 Altima 18/33/25 (CVT - only tranny offered with 4 cyl)

So yes, congrats to Malibu for matching the Accord. But the Accord isn't the class leader in this area.

Hybrids:

Altima Hybrid 27/36/32

Camry Hybrid 28/41/34

Civic Hybrid 26/47/37

Prius Hybrid 35/50/44

No one seems to have a good comparison with the Aura or Malibu hybrid. I imagine GM isn't exactly encouraging testing. But from what I have seen claimed they only get a couple of MPG better than the non-hybrids so they wouldn't even be close to competitive anyways. It also looks like they have raised the price of the Malibu and Aura by 10%. The Malibu and Aura hybrids are now the same cost as the Camry hybrid!!!! Now they can't even try to justify their horrible performance by claiming they are cheap... er... inexpensive.

So you'll have to cut the automotive media some slack if they give the imports credit for being more fuel efficient. Because it is true. And this is after GM, Ford, etc. have closed the gap as much as they have. Just two years ago it would have been that much worse. And I'm not even including the disaster that is Chrysler.

Regarding cost to own:

It is true that according to Edmunds the $11,950 aveo (according to GM it starts at 12,625, so I'm not sure why there is a $700 price difference here) has a true cost to own of ~$35,700 over five years and the $15,500 Honda civic DX $37,700. But the Civic has ABS, Side Head Curtain Airbags, power windows, rear heat ducts, more interior room, larger tires, anti-theft, a better crash NHTSA rating, an IIHS top pick (Good all around VS the Aveo's marginal and average scores), etc. Most importantly it isn't a piece of crap Aveo. So congrats to GM for making the cheapest car on the road. Not something I would be bragging about.

Again, this is one of your shining examples?

Myth No. 6

They don't build hybrids.

Reality

The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009. This also does not include the early electric Auto’s that GM had built and leased in the late 90’s but could not get sold outside of California.

I don't think that is a common belief. Heck, GM has been advertising the 2011 Volt for over a year now. With their very low sales, I bet GM plays hundreds of hybrid ads for every hybrid they sell. If anything people should be surprised to see how few hybrids GM does sell.

The "more models" comment is meaningless. I don't care if GM slaps some plastic on a chevy hybrid and sells a couple hundred a month as a pontiac.

You have done a mighty job of spinning. Lutz would be proud. This reminds me of those horrible commercials where GM (others did this as well) cherry-picked the worst aspects of each of their competitors' vehicles and then said how their vehicle was better in that one aspect. e.g. The Chevy Colorado has more torque than the Nissan Titan, more towing capacity that the Ford F150, etc. It is as meaningless as my made up example. When you look at the WHOLE package most of GM's cars are most often average or worse.

Many of the myths you mentioned are legitimate issues for GM and pretending and that they aren't might fool some people now but isn't going to help GM in the long run.

Edited by GXT
Link to post
Share on other sites

GXT- you need to stand back & re-read the piece. It's not a brag-sheet; it's written to answer outdated & erroneous perceptions, and it does than handily. For instance: the charge was 'Detroit builds gas guzzlers', when in fact the malibu equals the perceived gas sipper and ubitquitous 'efficiency' sedan, the accord. Perception disproved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GXT- you need to stand back & re-read the piece. It's not a brag-sheet; it's written to answer outdated & erroneous perceptions, and it does than handily. For instance: the charge was 'Detroit builds gas guzzlers', when in fact the malibu equals the perceived gas sipper and ubitquitous 'efficiency' sedan, the accord. Perception disproved.

Thank you balthazar, you are correct, the list is to answer outdated and erroneous perceptions about our own Auto Industry.

People remember we started this industry and we can not afford to let it go, this country cannot survive on just service jobs alone. We must wake up and realize that is nothing wrong with hard work and being able to produce product as long as we also realize that not every job is a $100,000 a year job.

In regards to GXT, I am amazed you are even on this web site when you seem to be so AntiAmerican Auto. Why be here with people that believe in American products and jobs and knows that GM along with FORD and Chrysler need to make Changes still to continue to get back to building World Class leading products.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For some reason there is currently no 2009 Corolla MT, but if (when?) it does exist it should be >20% more efficient than the Focus MT.

?

2009 Toyota Corolla

Stock #: T151499

Style: 4dr Sdn Man S (Natl)

Model #: 1833

VIN: 2T1BU40E99C151499

-5-speed manual transmission w/OD 1236

http://www.fitzmall.com/fitzway/carfind/RE...20T23:03:21.540

2009 Toyota Corolla

Transmission: 5-Speed Manual

Stock Number: 903393

VIN: 2T1BU40E19C138021

Model Code: 1831

http://toyotaf.darcars.com/new-inventory/v...useHistory=true

TOYOTA COROLLA BASE

Year 2009

Transmission 5MT

VIN 2T1BU40E49C136148

http://www.youngertoyota.com/profile.asp?V...=&distance=

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...