Car and Bike Talk Discussions and comparisons of cars and motorcycles of all makes and models.

Carmageddon

Thread Tools
 
Old 12-03-2008, 02:02 PM
  #21  
Registered User

 
jasonjm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Blue Bell, PA
Posts: 1,991
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Penforhire,Dec 3 2008, 05:48 PM
Saki, I hear that even today GM's cost, per car, is several thousand dollars higher than the equivalent Japanese car due to loaded labor cost. They haven't come far enough fast enough. Sure I recognize the UAW shares the blame but if the primary beast dies then the leeches die too.

Maybe a condition of our bail-out should be a total flush-down-toilet of current management above a certain level. The problem is deciding who should run the place.
Here here. Bravo. Flush them all.
Old 12-03-2008, 03:13 PM
  #22  
Registered User

 
wills2k106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sewell, NJ
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

For GM a condition of the bail out should certainly be an ousting of Rick Wagoner. He was in charge throughout the 90's when GM didn't make a single car worth buying. Now that GM North America isn't designing the cars anymore there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Europe is designing most of the cars under the global platforms, with Australia contributing. Holden even had to sell the Zeta chassis to GM, they weren't thinking globally while there Aussie counterparts were. The tail wagging the dog. But they still didn't have plans for a solid lineup until congress asked them for one. Wagoner can only blame himself and the unions.

When the proverbial sh*t hit the fan they should have done what Ford is doing. The Fiesta, European Focus (Mazda 3), Mondeo and Falcon are all scheduled to become global platforms. The Mondeo and Falcon are being delayed so that they can be engineered to our safety and emissions standards with the next model cycle. The current Taurus is a Volvo S80 and the Fusion is a Mazda 6. Even in the short term they at least tried.

Chrysler has the Viper and most of the Jeep brand. Not worth saving in my opinion but maybe it should be split up among the other two or split up and sold in pieces. I wouldn't trust Nardelli with $7 let alone $7 billion, he couldn't run a successful company at Home Depot. Why Cerburus called him off the bench is beyond me.
Old 12-03-2008, 04:08 PM
  #23  
Registered User
 
Rednine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=jasonjm,Dec 3 2008, 03:01 PM] Thats nice, I've made more than 3x my money in SKF.
Old 12-03-2008, 07:55 PM
  #24  
Registered User

Thread Starter
 
Silverstreak HX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canton
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Rednine,Dec 3 2008, 04:01 PM
It can be argued (very successfully) that the growth of the car industry in America, created the middle class.
Almost overnight you had people employed by Mr Ford who could afford their own homes and an automobile, plus many of the staples which previously only the wealth could.
It isn't so much the US becoming dependent on the automobile industry ,as the automobile being very responsible for the America we have today.
Not to mention their factories being turned over to war production and making it possible for the US to become the super power it hopefully remains.

Here's a thought.

Shjuld the US lose the big 3 and a major conflict breaks out, (think a hell of a lot bigger than Irag) who or where would we turn to for our arms, tanks, planes, ammunition, etc etc?
Hopefully we wouldn't be up against China or Japan or India or Russia or Germany, as they would probably be who we would need to be buying our arms from.

Just wondering if losing all three would be detrimental to national security.
Any thoughts?


We CAN NOT afford to lose our manufacturing base in case of a crisis not to mention the 3 million jobs would immediately be lost.
If the taxpayer can not loan the Big 3 some money make the oil companies do it . Hell their the ones with the obscene profits so let them put that money to work! Duh.
What I can't figure out is where did the engineering go? It seems Ford cars were using Mazda and Volvo technology . Chrysler was using last generation Mercedes technology in their cars and bringing up the rear GM as usual had no technology in theirs . The one funny thing about GM was the one area where they looked like they had something ahead of everybody (EV1) they sent it to the crusher.
But the thing that really burned me up was the press kept saying that Ford had Great cars in Europe so how come we never got any of them ? Were the bastards really too cheap to bring them over here?? Now the whole economy and industry comes crashing down and NOW they finally decide to bring over the Europe lineup.
My next question is when and if the big 3 survive where do they expect to get customers when 1/4 of Americans have lost their job due to this crappy economy?
WOW what a mess .
Old 12-03-2008, 11:15 PM
  #25  

 
TheDonEffect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,024
Received 483 Likes on 367 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by timrocks311,Dec 3 2008, 01:00 PM
oh yeah, that right there is the key to success.
Just trying to be optimistic here, lol.
Old 12-04-2008, 03:18 AM
  #26  
Registered User
 
timrocks311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Drexel Hill, PA
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TheDonEffect,Dec 4 2008, 12:15 AM
Just trying to be optimistic here, lol.
yeah...i just agree with most people on here and i don't see a means to profitability for these companies. reading articles on CNN they're highlighting bullsh*t like $1 a year salaries, selling jets, etc. WTF!? stuff like that won't do anything to save these companies...especially when the CEOs will still get millions in bonuses. how can you give bonuses to people when they are running a failing company?

anyway, i'd love to hear their plan (in detail) for how these companies are going to make money. even with new products and such, is anyone actually going to buy them? i like the idea of taking the money and giving everyone $20k to buy a car. i'd go out tomorrow and get one...of course i guarantee it would not be a GM, Chrysler or Ford. unfortunately, these companies have developed such a bad reputation compared to Honda, Toyota, etc, that they can't get away from it.
Old 12-04-2008, 06:46 AM
  #27  
Registered User

 
jasonjm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Blue Bell, PA
Posts: 1,991
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Rednine,Dec 3 2008, 08:08 PM
I'm not going to get into a discussion with your regarding trading.
After all, couldn't both of us claim anything? By the way, way to go with SKF.

I am glad you won't bank on me though. I'd hate to see you make any money on me.

You're right. I don't know if GM will be around 3 years from now or turning a profit. But one thing I will bet you, they are going to get their bailout. And you should thank your stars there are people out there with more foresight than you are showing.

Speculation and fundamentals... You do realize the opportunites right now?
Yes, there are opportunities right now. And I am banking on that only.

But I will still not bank on GM, even with a bail out.

Much like the historical events which similarly happened in the UK with their auto industry. And that, is my fundamental foresight. A technical foresight would be analyzing what potential a firm has when it couldn't do things right when times were booming.

But really do I really want to see the American Auto industry down in the gutter? No. I wish the American auto industry was in much better shape, that it would be _thee_ shining of a once brightly filled sky.

No matter what, the big three have huge inventories, and they're planning on shedding weight. Great, but that means all their estimates even from three weeks ago are way off. On top of that they have to make people buy their cars and they're literally behind the curve. Think about it, it's not just about hiring cheaper labor, or imitating car design and material.

It's changing a company's core. Look at GM with it's "A car for every person" mission mantra. This is some serious re-engineering of Firm, Organization, Cost Structures, Materials, Design, and Production. In the end you'd have a new firm.

So is it easier to renovate and re-sell the housing projects (no pun intended!), or just tear it down all together?

I would completely fund with confidence and hope a whole new American Car company, a fresh start. Call it 'AM1, American 1' or whatever, and start doing things the right way.

Sure, they'll be casualties along the way but this is a opportunity I see.

Take the Best, brightest, and hardest working of the big three and make One spearhead of a company.
Old 12-04-2008, 06:52 AM
  #28  
Registered User
 
Rednine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=timrocks311,Dec 4 2008, 04:18 AM]
i like the idea of taking the money and giving everyone $20k to buy a car. i'd go out tomorrow and get one...of course i guarantee it would not be a GM, Chrysler or Ford.
Old 12-04-2008, 07:00 AM
  #29  
Registered User
 
ECale3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Laurel
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I would consider a bailout of ford and let the other two die. I think of the three Ford is the only one currently positioned for future success.
Old 12-04-2008, 07:04 AM
  #30  
Registered User

 
Elistan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Longmont, CO
Posts: 15,324
Received 28 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silverstreak HX,Dec 3 2008, 10:55 PM
We CAN NOT afford to lose our manufacturing base in case of a crisis not to mention the 3 million jobs would immediately be lost.
That "three million jobs" number assumes that domestic car company production and employment immediately drops to zero for a full year. And it's only for the first year - three years later in 2011, the study estimates that 1.3 million jobs return. To put that in perspective, we're already had 1 million job cuts this year. Is 1.7 million more bad? Sure, but it seems to me to be an extremely unlikely scenario (heck, even Ford says it doesn't "need" the money but would like to have it available just in case) that's not nearly as bad as people are making out. Declaring bankruptcy does not mean an immediate cessation of all production. It is, IMO, the best way to restructure these companies so they can emerge as better ones.

http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDet...pact_3__000.pdf


Quick Reply: Carmageddon



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:29 AM.