evok

Give me a break! Do you or enzl have any clue what is happening in the banking sector right now? Do you know how GM and GMAC factored into the housing bubble? GMAC helped created the current economic problems in the US and yet you two cry because GMAC now requires more responsible lending standards. You two throw stones and yet you live in a glass house.

2007 Chrysler LLC European Sales: Chrysler - 48k Dodge - 25k Jeep - 46k Total: 119k I do not know if I would call Chrysler or any of their brands global. Well, maybe they are if you factor in the 3,000 vehicles they sold in Australia last year.

The terms have yet to come out as to what Cerberus was going to use to buy the remaining 19.9% they do not own. It remains a valid point of discussion because Daimler is still in this. Jeep is a US brand that sells a very small percentage around the world. That is one of Chrysler's biggest weakness as a company, they are not a global company. About 90% of Chrysler's sales are in the US and Canada. Chrysler's European foot print is small. Last I looked Chrysler sells about 100,000 vehicles in Europe including Jeep. GM also proposed a merger with Ford according to yesterday's NY Times article (Ford shot them down) and now something with Cerberus/Chrysler. This was all prior to this utter disaster, great reckoning that is happening to the financial industry and what will happen to this economy. These moves by GM seem very desparate to me and do not come across as GM raising a red flag but a white one.

PSC, Daimler does have a stake in the company as they continue to own 20% of Chrysler and Cerberus owes Daimler at least 2 billion dollars. If any sort of deal goes through, that must be considered. With GM and Cerberus on the brink, GM really not needing anymore brands, Jeep not being an intergral part of Chrysler, the Jeep plants and brand can be cut relatively easily. Given Jeep will "never" again sell a big number of suvs in the US again there is little brand equity left in the volume market. GM also does not have the cash or time that would be required to sustain Jeep going foward. GM cannot manage the brands they currently have. Daimler keeping Jeep and moving it upscale ala Rover makes a lot more sense. If GM does keep the brand, something has to give on the GM side. Freaking Hyundai spends more money on R&D and capital investments than GM. I will repeat, Hyundai with 2 major brands out spends General Motors with their collection of niche nameplates on new product. A GM-Chrysler merger makes no sense unless the deal includes Chrysler's cash on hand (app. 10 billion USD) or GM can convince the Federal government a real bailout is required to preserve the US company. GM right now has a market cap of about 3 billion dollars and over 30 billion dollars of debt. Factor in the frozen credit markets GM has no ability to raise cash on its own. Whatever assets they have left to pawn, will be sold at pennies on the dollar. GM is have trouble taking out a home equity loan on the Ren Cen right now. GM trying to use GMDAT, GME, OnStar as collateral for a loan from a bank will not happen in today's economic climate. If not GM will have to replace the surgical scapel wil a spoon to make the necessary cuts. GM needs the cash not the company. I believe GM is scheduled to make an announcement about production cuts this week. Any bets on GM will announce a shutdown of NAO for an extended period? GMAC is not funding the dealer's floor plan like they used to which means GM has no buyers for the vehicles they make.

I never said which assets were worth keeping and I never said GM would even get Jeep. One major wild card in the mix is Daimler as they continue to own 19.9% of Chrysler LLC. Chrysler LLC also owes Daimler at least $2 billion that comes due in 2014. They could very well want Jeep back to forgive some of that debt. Also don't forget, the NG Jeeps are to share parts with the MB utes. It may make more economic sense for Daimler to keep Jeep. Even when you factor in CAFE and the market shift away from SUVs, Jeep is a nice niche brand but its volume days are over. How many niche brands does GM have already? General Motor, Chrysler and GMAC right now could very well fail in the next year. That is not Wall Street speculation because in case anyone has missed it, there is not much left on Wall Street anymore. For starters, Cerberus is a heavily leveraged firm that has just seen, the liquidity in the system dry up. GMAC was caught up in ground zero of the housing bubble implosion with Residential Capital. GMAC right now faces the exact same thing as the rest of the banking industry. Now factor in Cerberus ownes the majority of Chrysler and much like GM and F, business is not the best. Cerberus's foray into automotive could very well undo them without drastic action. Between GMAC and Chrysler, Cerberus has $21 billion dollars at stake right now. Much of that borowed and given the times, the lenders could be knocking on the door. Chrysler has been conserving cash under Cerberus' ownership. That is a code term in their press releases which means they are not investing in the company (product, plants etc). The company's future has been neglected in the last 2 years. Chrysler is not worth much right now beyond the cash on hand. Sooner or later Chrysler will need new product and there is a 4-5 year lead time. They just lost 2 years. They wait any longer, Chrysler will not have the funds to be a full line manufacturer. Chrysler's fleet will look like the old days with a bunch of rebadges. There sales of dropped from 3 million to 1 million a years. That volume may be lost forever. 2/3 of the company is gone. GM on the other hand is functionally bankrupt and the situation will only get worse as the market collapses. Let us not forget that only a few years ago the US market was at 17 million sales a year and currently is selling at a rate of 12 million. Toyota is adding huge incentives on their product and that puts pricing pressure on the domestics. The situation in the US is bad and GM does not make enough in Europe or Asia to cover them. Europe has been a money drain on them for year and still has weak traction in what is getting to be a weak market. Asia looks good for them in the press but in reality, GM just has a bunch of joint ventures with China and Daewoo and cannot account for all the profits in those operations. Now that the banking crisis has hit, GM cannot raise cash. GM also cannot sell cars to non-credit worthy buyers because GMAC will not underwrite the loans. GM is also out of the leasing business because GMAC will not underwrite the leases. The current situation is bleak and I am being kind. Hell GM is back in the fleeting business with the Malibu just to keep the cash coming in. The 50+% of Malibu sales last month is a real number. Now why would GM and Cerberus want to do this? The simple answer is to survive. Who knows what this deal may look like but Cerberus will never gets its money back in Chrysler. So I suspect they will take a position in GM for Chrysler and in return they get full control over GMAC. Cerberus can focus on GMAC and GM can focus on automotive. There can be little cash changing hands as both GM and Cerberus are not cash rich right now. GM could give Cerberus about 20% of the company and if GM every turns around Cerberus could cash out. If something like this goes through and GM takes on Chrysler as is or in some form, GM could argue they are too big to fail at that point (because of the potential job losses, supply base implosion, etc) to get a real bailout by the government. The US will need manufacturing to recover from the economic nighmare unfolding. They do have a good case. I am not sure if this is happening already, but Cerberus could also make the case to open up GMAC to the fed's direct lending. GMAC right now should be eligible to sell Res Caps Mortgage backed Securities and structured auto loans if they are sitting on any that have previously been package prior to the September 2008 cut off stipulated in the $700B Financial Rescue Bill. With Cerberus owning 100% of GMAC they would not have to consult with GM to make significant structural moves. I will be crystal clear, whatever is happening right now between Cerberus and GM is being done because they just may not have any other choice right now. Cerberus, GM, GMAC and Chrysler can very well fail. Just look at Wall St. Now what will GM with Chrysler? Get the government's permision to resturcture a combined GM-Chrysler in the name of preserving the US auto industry. I would expect Chrysler to go away as we know it and for that matter so could GM brands and many dealers. I wrote a long piece about just that on here or CamaroZ28 back in Feb 07.

Or how about GM takes the $11 billion Chrysler supposedly has on hand while picking select Chrysler assets for themselves and closes/liquidates the rest of Chrysler LLC. 2009 is projected to be one of the worst years in 25 years. I highly doubt the market will miss Chrysler and Dodge. GM needs the cash not Chrysler LLC.

I wrote and extensive post back around december 2005. I believe it was a reply to GoBlue1999 or some one like that. Please look it up. You might learn something. I outlined many of the structural changes GM has made and I stated Wagoner/Smith deserve a ot of credit. But to repond to the current situation here are a few of my concerns: 1) Where is the 4th Q results? 2) Where is the Annual Report for 2006? 3) What happened at ResCap? 4) GM has a hidden incentive that is never dissused that is just as bad as their other money on the hood. That incentive and its relevance to GM's retail percentage is never dissused and it is not published as far as I know in their 10k. I have to number (It is not good) but I will poses it as a question. What percentage of GMs retail sales are at GMS employee pricing? 5) Gas prices are creeping up again and GMs revenue gains earlier in the year were because of the 900s. 6) GM's new product offerings do not appear to be doing well such as the Aura. 7) The new Tundra is still a question mark and may impact 900 sales. 8 ) The Koreans keep expanding their portfolio of product and there are plenty more new segments the are entering there by fracturing the market further. 9) Chrysler has new crossovers that have done the same. 10) UAW contact expires September 2007. See what you actually stated in the earlier thread. The concept - I like the styling and like the styling direction. That is my opinion on the vehicle. Actually that is the most I have actually said on this vehicle as far as my opinion of the concept is concerned. Hell I think it would make a great Cobalt replacemntIt is a concept and not a production vehicle. The lithiom ion batteries are a big question mark? To answer your Tundra question. 1) I do not feel like dealing with the biased BS from some around here. 2) Wait and see. 3) Toyota has a lot of money to throw at it. 4) Toyota has a real truck. 5) Full size PU market is going to be a tough nut to crask for them, but them have the money to throw at it. Well there could be product coming from China and I heard a midsized car is a possibility. BTW - Please actually read my posts especially when I put a serious one together, instead of relying on the public comments or admin discussions from FOG and Camino. You might actually see what I say. I am very sorry that GM has some very serious problems. There are many books on the subject that are objective and not biases. Being a GM fan does not change the very serious problems they have.

To all: As has been already pointed out Prius sales are up in 2007 compared to 2006. Not only that but Toyota's total hybrid sales are up in 2007. Let me state another fact, Toyota sold almost 20,000 hybrid vehicles in Febuary of 2007. That is not spin but an absolute fact. What I just wrote is public information and is available here on CG as a matter of another fact. For another fact, Prius sales are up year to date 6000 vehicles and sales have been pretty consistent over the recent months. Look it up the data is on CG. Do you want more facts. GM lost 10 B USD in 2005 GM will probably loose 5 B USD in 2006 Why don't I know exactly how much GM lost in 2006? Because of the fact GM has accounting issues and has yet to release their annual report or any official guidance. It is a fact that GM's market cap is app 20B USD compared to Toyota's value of over 200B USD. It is a fact that Toyota made 13B USD in profit last year. It is a fact that if GM did not purchase a controlling interest in Daewoo, Toyota would have already surpassed GM's global sales lead. It is a fact that GM announced they are closing 3 large general assembly plants in the US (OK City, Doreville GA, Osh II.) It is a fact that Toyota has opened a new truck plant in Texas and has just announced a new plant in the southern US. It is a fact that according to major and accept quality studies GM still trails Toyota. It is a fact GM has lost over a million sales in the past 3 years. It is a fact Toyota has increase their sales by about a million since 2000. It is a fact GM has inflated their car sales by fleeting upwards of 30%. It is a fact Toyota does not fleet more than 10% of their sales in the US. And in reality it is alot less than 10%. But I did not feel the need to compute the exact percentage and I wanted to keep my fact straight. Now I pose the question, on paper, which is a better run, operated, consistent company based upon the facts? Toyota or GM. Sorry but the facts are not BULL$h!. PS - According to recent Auto News publication there are no cash incentives on the Prius but they do have special finance interest rates of 2.9% for up to 60 months. Also, the tax credits as a percent deduction are based upon a the number of hybrids sold by a manufacturer and time. People buying the Prius or other Toyota hybrid product today are not eligible for the full tax credit. Damn those pesky facts again.

When the crows fly south and the sun is ecliped by the moon.

Along with the coupe it will fill the void when the STS and SRX go out of production and keep LGR running at full tilt.

Chrysler Group lacks a global distribution. And Mercedes Group lacked/s vision when it came to working with CG. In a simple world IF Daimler divests themselves some how of Auburn Hills but keeps Jeep, MG could than sell Jeeps at their global dealers. Of course they could add product and reposition the brand back to its roots while upgrading the product to be Land Rover like. It is possible if they decide crossovers are necessary Jeeps could be based upon MB rwd platforms instead of Calibres. Plus the Jeep brand image would be better associated with MB and the rub off perception will help. At the same time MB could control their SUV proliferation and reduce the brand dilution. I find it very interesting that Daimler announced during the restructuring conference call there will be platform sharing between Jeep and MB but not between the other CG brands.

I agree 100% and that would probably be the best thing that can happen to the US auto manufacturers. F and GM would be a natural fit to pick up those buyers and would take a lot of pressure off of them as far as NA plant capacity. MB could keep Jeep and relaunch it much like BMW did with MINI.

Instead of arguing with me - why not learn how to f'in read. and I quote ""Lutz: The G8 will be assembled in Australia by GM's Holden subsidiary. But it could be built on this continent"." "you said: Contrary to some people reporting there are no plans to bring the G8 To North America the opposite is quite true. At least according to Bob." That says could, not will, not planned, not will happen. On top of that, the quote was taken from a recent interview with Lutz which I have watched. No, it is you, taking the Lutz statements out of context. In that same interview, Lutz also appears uncertain/questioning/hesitant if the G8 will reach expected retail demand and compares that with the fleet/retail mix with the current GP. I saw the interview. Please get your head out of your ass already. You pulled this same crap with me on the Camaro over a year ago. Grow up already. I was correct about that and I am correct about this.

Oh go have a knish.

There are no plans. What don't you understand. I don't care what Bob said to the media. Read what Chazman said. Bob either spoke out of turn or was taken out of context. If the damn G8 does not hit well above 30,000 vehicle and I mean well over a NA built G8 is unlikely.

GM gives the cars away because there is no retail demand for them. Here is the Big 3 cycle: Design Vehicle = no body wants vehicle = give away incentive = Fleet = loose money = plants running = UAW employed = close plants = restructure = design new vehicle = no body wants vehicle = give away incentive = Fleet = loose money = plants running = UAW employed = close plants = restructure = design new vehicle = no body wants vehicle = give away incentive = Fleet = loose money = plants running = UAW employed = etc This trend has been going on for 25 years. Why do you think the auto companies bought the Rental Companies in the 80s or 90s? For them it was like the Mob laundering money.

Fleet queen along with the rest of the LX programs. Close to 40%.

Bingo - We have a winner.

There is no question mark.

Volumes will change as the hot selling Camaro gets cold in its second year and then Impala comes online the next, etc etc. But yes I agree - I have seen a number of recent estimates for the 4 zetas at Osh and on average it is alot closer to 300k than 400k.

Updates I have seen are under 400k now for the 3 vehicles plus the Cadillac large car replacement.

I challenge anyone to point out the major, significant flaw in Flints analysis! Well maybe it is not so much a challenge but an obvious oversight by Mr. Flint. For someone that claims to follow automotive since the Truman Administrations, he has not been reading GM's PRs of late. Enjoy! http://www.forbes.com/home/columnists/2007...FTOKEN=14966281

Could, maybe, possible, considered are not absolutes.

Might I suggest you read up on GM and it's history. I would suggest you start with Sloan's book My Years With GM. Than I would jump to John DeLorean's book, On a Clear Day You Can See GM. And finally, Maryann Keller's or Albert Lee's, Rude Awakeing or Call Me Roger. Your comments are based upon personal opinon and not on the facts at GM nor do you appreciate the greater market forces that GM is up against. --------------- Pontiac and Buick are arguably in worse shape today than Oldmobile was in when Rock tried to revive the brand. Rocks attempt to relaunch the brand after sales dropped by over half in a half decade go to show how difficult if not impossible it is to change public opinion in a crowded market with good product.

We will find out in a year or so. I just do not see the vehicle being a homerun and bringing in conquest sales. As I have said, GM's success in bringing international vehicles to the US has been dismal. Pontiac has had little success selling Bonnevilles in the price range where the G8 will be situated, the GP same thing. The G6 has been a bust. The Solstice sales have begun to slow to a crawl in recent months. So why should the G8 drive demand for the brand when there is little that is stand out compared to the competition visually. I am not debating the mechanics and technicals of the vehicle, but I bring up points that I believe are valid as to how the greater market will perceive this vehicle. Guaging public opinion on a fan site is not going to show much. For what it is worth, most people that I have discussed the vehicle with, who are not fluent in the day to day of automotive have been lukewarm to the styling. And it being a Pontiac did not help. The G8 is good looking vehicle. But I highly doubt it will move the interest needle because it is derivative. In particular, the split grill styling is dated and tired and is a liability to an otherwise good product. There is no doubt in my mind if the G8 was a Nissan or other brand it would be a hands down winner. It is just that Pontiac reputation calls for somthing bolder at least in the front end to spark real interest in the brand. All I have to use is the success of the CTS and Escalade compared to the STS and SRX to illustrate what it takes to turn a brand around and change public perceptions when a brand is in a hole.