enzl

Rear looks like original GS---the best looking one by far. Car looks great---it'll be interesting to see if Buick fans ignore the other crap going on at GM and buy it. Excellent job by the design (and finally) the photography teams.

I was only referring to the fact that numbers are not telling the whole story---if I'm coming off of record sales and you're in the tank the previous year, the story isn't really just in a direct month-to-month comparison. That being said, it appears that the new car market will be in the toilet for awhile---how long will dictate GM and Chrysler's survival, as neither can survive on a SAAR of 10 million units for too long---you simply can't take enough supply out of the system fast enough without the Big B.

Just remember, these import numbers are skewed by the relatively successful end of 07 for the big Japanese 3...the Det3 had already begun taking on water in Dec 07. While it's nice to see the marketplace treating all equally, the imports refered to here were having banner sales months during the comparison period.

The shortage of a real, head turning, class-leading US small car has haunted GM since the Beetle crawled ashore 50+ years ago. GM hasn't quite shook off the notion that small cars are a waste of time...the products they've produced merely reinforced that attitude and perpetuated it. I just don't think they should bother if they're not going to try and do something different (in a good way). How about putting stop/start and BAS in the Cruze when it arrives? Or the option of a diesel? They've got to try something else--something that makes news, something that matters---and thus makes GM relevant. Other than the loss of the SS versions, who other than Avis would mourn the loss of the Cobalt/G5? You've got to get people's attention in a crowded mindspace--'just good enough' has been a recipe for disaster.

Not going to lecture with a primer on exactly how GM can't survive without GMAC---but suffice it to say that while the UAW is a direct beneficiary of the whole ship not going down, they are simply one of many actors who had their asses pulled from the fire with the rescue of GMAC. And I have to give GMAC credit in one regard---the day after they got their money, it was put into circulation, unlike the other banks that have been bailed out--many just stuck their cash in their vaults to wait out the storm...

To clarify---without a GMAC bailout, there was no GM going forward. A GMAC failure meant instant death for up to 40% of GM's dealers. The money used should allow some lending by GMAC, as opposed to the extremely limited participation today. Any incremental help is desperately needed.

A little bit of back of the napkin-type analysis... ...but, if you factor in the lack of GMAC retail financing (IIRC, 2% of GM sales in Nov. 08 v. up to 50%+ previously) for the last few months, GM might actually be gaining significant marketshare. GMAC's implosion has hurt GM in many ways more than managerial blunders on the product side---especially since you've got to figure the economy has all but eliminated the casual shopper.

Ring up another few billion in the bailout bonanza...Feds give GMAC $6B+ including a cool $1B to GM $ to invest in GMAC. Hugely good news for GM. And their dealers. http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/29/news/compa...sion=2008122919

Yes, GM is behind them...shoving them over the cliff. What does a GM brand or exec have to do to qualify as hopeless? Saturn is a cool idea but a failed experiment---RW is a nice, smart guy, but a failure as a leader. The Gov't should come and take the money away just for considering putting one tax-payer's dollar into Saturn at this time. I'm sorry to all the true believers, but this is absurd.

This was the world most expensive punt. I really hope GM & Chrysler can do something with their second chance (and third, come the spring.) Anyone here genuinely confident that those involved in guiding this--between management & the government--can make this work? When I think transformational abilities, the Federal Gov't and/or Auto execs aren't the first people that spring to mind.

Yes. If US market 'recovers' to 14m vehicles/yr., you still need to take the capacity for 2-3million cars out of the system---a majority of those will be Domestic nameplates, although there's sure to be others that feel some pain. Even Japan's market has shrunk precipitously---as well as a Euro slow down---mean they'll be lots of blood shed in the next 12-18 months.

Unfortunately, the post-bailout GM cannot be the present size....a big part of GM's current problems is the fact they've had to maintain a certain footprint, due to legacy costs and franchise agreements. As an enthusiast, the loss of nameplates and divisions is certainly sad---but GM as we know it has been dead for years--$70Billion in losses during the largest US market in history has to tell even the most hardcore fan that something is terribly wrong at the Tubes. There's no economy of scale when you cannot profitably sell what you make. It's obvious GM hasn't been making money on most of its production in years, probably decades. I am sympathetic to all hurt in these cuts as a person (and I very well could be one of them), but anyone who foresees GM's survival must be a realist---there will be massive changes---many unpleasant.

There's plenty of blame to go around regarding GM's present situation. I would agree that many of the problems inherently part of GM's downfall are old history---UAW contracts, dealers, legacy costs, et al...no debate there. But here's the hard truth: Current management has known about the inherent structural weaknesses---but did little about it. GM could have sold brands like Hummer or Saab years ago...better yet, what's the deal with killing Olds only to create Hummer? The Saturn experiment could have been handled differently...the 2 assets Saturn had Spring Hill and its quality dealers also could have been sold off---better yet, why didn't they consider hitting up Renault, Fiat (Alfa, Lancia, Maserati) or somebody else---a great group of dealers and a modern plant with a progressive workforce wasn't attractive? Where were the GM masters oversight when it came to GMAC--just across town, Ford had avoided mortgage lending to concentrate on Vehicle Lending...shouldn't GM have nurtured that cash cow, not allowed it to wander into oncoming traffic (Cerberus, ahem)---or at least not sell it to sharks who now own a rival? Why couldn't global resources be harnessed to produce all types of vehicles? GME has nice small product---Australia had RWD expertise---S. America made cheap pick-ups---multiple Japanese tie-ups could have done more, no? So, while I agree that the situation was difficult, there was so much more that SHOULD have been done---and if RW knew they were a few bad quarters away from bankruptcy, why wasn't the business prepared for the worst? Did 9/11 teach them nothing? Where was the leadership? The corporate vision? The outside innovation? I deal with GM frequently---and the attitude has always been positively allergic to NIH---this day of reckoning may have been sped up by Macroeconomic forces, but I cannot allow the current management a pity party---they are paid millions precisely to avoid the potholes, not drive GM into 'em.

FoG... I appreciate your passion, but the truth is that much of this piece is true... RW had the boys wearing '30' pins early in his tenure...indicating that their market share was going to grow (IIRC from 28 to 30+)....obviously, it didn't. GM was losing money before the bottom dropped out---one of the reasons GM has lost control of its captive finance arm (GMAC) was because GM itself was dragging its credit rating into the toilet with Q after Q of poor results...and since GMAC got sidetracked giving out mortgages to everyone with a pulse thru its ResCap division, even sharks like Cerberus are about to go down. (Note: Ford never allowed its finance arm to dabble in Mortgages---they've got money to lend now, when it's needed most.) The point of this article is that RW hasn't been able (either through inertia or ignorance) to bring GM far enough through the change necessary to survive this brutal timeperiod...I think that the result has been a disaster, regardless of whether you directly blame RW or not--he's the captain, it's his ship. Sometimes in life, you need to accept responsibility, instead of qualifying every statement with a 'but' or 'if' or 'maybe'. RW has proven to be an ineffective leader that couldn't accomplish what was needed to be done before the sh!t hit the fan...one can quibble around the edges, but GM clearly hasn't been able to do enough to change its fate---there's a reckoning that must follow---hopefully it isn't the worst case scenario.

Dramatic, perhaps, but not entirely untrue...unfortunately.

Unfortunately, there is no incentive to investing in GM or Chrysler dealerships...there hasn't been for about 18 months or so. There are multi-channel GM & Alpha program dealers that got BBQ'ed in those deals recently. There are simply too many dealers & an innate inability to make money with new cars from these two--and Ford is only better by comparison. Most dealers aren't making money right now. Capital improvements will slow to a crawl until things really clear up, economically.

Unfortunately, GM's probably paying someone to take it...a $1 for Saab would be way too much for a buyer to pay.

ummm...It's pessimistic because that's reality. Of the Big 3, Chrysler has a zero probability of surviving '09 without a partner or closure. The GM/Ford stuff annoys me, but the Chrysler stuff is deadly accurate, unfortunately.

I think you're right about the product...I'm not sure that the Titanic analogy is correct regarding new leadership---I believe that a turnaround specialist is needed, perhaps with a 2nd in Command that truly knows the Auto Industry to make sure the cuts made will not result in further damage. I just don't see RW as having the stomach for the job---and the fact that most development work has stopped on vehicles ready for intro should mean that the key component of the biz (new, desirable product) shouldn't be affected too badly while a new guy gets up to speed....hopefully, there's alot of talent to unearth at GM that new blood might reinvigorate or promote after peeling away the layers of beauracrasy that need to go.

You are right about the fear gripping the marketplace---however, I hold RW (as Captain of the Ship for 8 years now) for the fact that GM was not prepared for an emergency---and the denial eminating from Detroit for the last year didn't help. If you feel that the man at the helm isn't responsible, I understand, but disagree. This precipice we're at is a result of the path set by RW. I disagree that the new product would have brought major sales increases---none of the other 'game changers' were dramatic winners (with the notable exception of the CTS). Even the 'bu has struggled to match its predecessor's volume---and its great. The LaCrosse, Lucerne, Aura, Astra, GTO, G8, STS et al have all struggled to match or exceed their previous incarnations sales --- why would the new ones do better? Perhaps extreme change is scary, but IMO its long overdue.

You're twisting my words to suit your POV--and here's how: a. Wagoner doesn't need Lutz if he knows the product as he should from 30+ years in the biz---and Lutz has been about 50/50 with product that is 'passionate' (his forte)--the GTO, G8, Solstice & Sky are all "Lutz " products---none have made GM a dime. b. VW has the 'doo-doo-doo' TV ads and Mini's ads have been ad industry award winning---not my opinion, but the ad industry's opinion--their print ads were especially clever--whether you noticed them or not isn't my criterion c. Nissan/Renault would have been a help as a shoulder to lean on---How can you deny that when GM just went to Congress and testified they are insolvent without a $4billion bridge loan? I'm not saying it would have been a great partnership, just a better result, given how things have turned out... d. GMAC had to be sold. GM couldn't borrow money at competitive rates. It was no stroke of genius. Allison transmission was responsible for much of the engineering of hybrid buses--think there might be a future in that? and the list goes on for fire sales of assets that were sold to pay debts. e. But, the portfolio of product was mediocre, so the strategy failed, despite Lutz' presence. The pull ahead of the GMT900's really didn't work either. Starving Saab and Saturn didn't really work---stuffing Saturn with product didn't work. Large CUVs didn't really help stem the losses---where were they right in all of this? f. If TVR found a buyer, they could have sold Hummer or Saab--not for alot--but the new 9-5 would make a great Pontiac or ES competitor for Caddy--the new 9-4X might make a nice Buick small CUV, no?--all of the new Saturns would be great in other divisions--Astra at Pontiac, Aura at Buick, Outlook not cannibilizing other Lambdas--It's a cumulative downfall---a bunch of poor decisions resulting in a larger problem. g. He lied in one of those two places mentioned---either the SEC or Congress should be concerned---forward looking statements regarding GM's viability only appeared in the last SEC filing---Wagoner stated that they were effectively out of money in Congress--so either you're mistaken or Wagoner made materially false statements to gov't officials---the SH will get screwed---but if GM survives, I'm sure they'll find a lawyer that will sue GM due to the unprecedented loss of SH value. h. GM's sales slide was GREATER than industry average. Again, cherry picking the worst examples doesn't make GM look better, it merely indicates there were those that did as poorly or worse. RW isn't completely to blame, but his track record gives me little confidence as someone with a vested interest in GM's survival---and that's the bottom line--I'm finished, out of a job, out of an investment, out of a future if GM goes down--you're damn straight I've been paying attention closely.

You say potato, I say potato....Your defense to RW's track record is that: a)RW couldn't tell good product from bad, so he hired Lutz, despite the fact he's an industry lifer. b)Everyone else's marketing sux, so its OK to be as bad---haven't seen a Mini ad lately? Or VW ads of a few years back? c)You know the intimate details of the R/N deal with GM? Never disclosed...all that we do know is what leaked from GM's side---and that is going to be slanted, no? GM couldn't use partners now, huh? Weeks away from bankruptcy and they'd be worse off---that's simply a lie and you know better. d)They sold off the family jewels to pay for underfunded liabilities---and I'm supposed to say that's a good idea? They HAD NO choice. e)None of their 'turnaround' product is company-saving---and the cadence should have been identified as too little volume for a company the size of GM, right up front. f)Hummer and Saab could have found homes a few years ago when times were good---if Aston or TVR could find investors, so could Saab or Hummer--especially b/c money was very cheap.oa g)Then, if there's no money for SH's, send him to jail. He was still UNTRUTHFUL, a Federal crime, my friend. He either lied under oath to Congress or in an SEC filing he signs off on---either way, that's a crime. Simple logic dictates one of those 2 scenarios is accurate. h)The reason GM's sales are off MORE than the market (a true indicator of management competence) is because upon the loss of GMAC's help, no other banking partner was brought in to fill the void. There should have been a deal in place the minute GMAC began hemmoraging money months ago. Please don't defend this guy. It demeans you. He doesn't deserve it.

No. Symbolism is only one reason, the real reasons are outlined above.

I'm certainly not holding myself out as an expert regarding the restructuring of GM---however, I can tell you that there were many things that have nothing to do with legacy costs or structural changes that could have made a big difference during Rick's tenure: 1. Product, product, product--there is simply nothing unique about a majority of products developed and intro'ed in RW's tenure. I may not know much about GM's convoluted org chart, but I can tell you that the Cobalt, Impala, Lucerne, LaCrosse, Colorado, STS et al simply aren't that good. Design costs the same whether it looks good or mediocre---and all of these volume products look as bland as their Toyota competitors or worse! None on that list have a USP. 2. Marketing & Advertising---again, like design, it costs nearly the same, whether done wrong or right. It would be hard to argue these things have been done right by GM in the last 8 years. 3. Rejecting Ghosn's overtures and York's suggestions, because they threatened his hold on power. No matter what you say, this offer was GM's best chance in recent history to find a true leader who could manage a crisis (Ghosn) and had VAST experience with rescuing sprawling operations (Nissan had $20b in debt at his arrival, proportionately similar to GM's present debt load.) York's brand cuts would have worked back then: Private money would have flowed to a Hummer or Saab sale and Saturn's product revival could have been split amongst the other GM divisions if the dealer network and IP had been sold to others. Lastly, the fear of doing something shouldn't make you do nothing. Chew on this: Is GM really running out of cash this month? Or is this a ploy to keep the present mgmt employed through the bailout by the fear you describe? Remember, if its true, then there's an SEC and Shareholder action just around the corner (RW was issuing denials publicly until last month.) So, is RW lying now or 30 days ago? Either that, or he didn't see the disaster on the immediate horizon...in either case, he needs to go. Pick your poison, but one of the previous 2 possibilities MUST be true. I'll take my chances with fresh blood than staying the course. Fear of the unknown is not an acceptable answer, given this mgmt team's track record.

Baseball is being used as an analogy...not an example....sheesh....and, if you understood the analogy, you would also understand that I have some sympathy for RW's plight---but I'd still fire his ass. GM has never embraced the changes necessary to adapt --- that is the chief reason that a change agent is needed for that organization. It must start at the top---identifying every avenue possible to fix what is clearly a broken system---and then it must be followed by the troops to the letter. Allowing RW to stay will never allow that to happen. Fritz as his successor is also a bad idea...