O. L. T.

iTrader: (17)

If the government wants to help american business give me money. I have more potential than GM

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

GM has an insane amount of retirement obligation and the CEO has said their BEST HOPE is if the retirees DIE QUICKLY! Improving product is only buying GM time - they still have WAY too much capacity and employees they can't get rid of without VAST payout packages increasing debt further.

Ford has less retirement obligation than GM by MILES, but still has crushing debt. Their product line-up is improving, but they still have a lot of holes, massive over capacity, and as has been mentioned, Lincoln / Mercury aren't doing that well, despite their hot spokesperson Jill Wagner. They've offered early retirement to EVERY EMPLOYEE now but they're restating financial results going back years now, so bankruptcy is still a distinct possibility to relieve pressure from the debt load.

Chrysler's performance is sheltered by Daimler[Benz] results which are solid.

I don't see any of them going away - just going into bankruptcy for a while.

SteVTEC

she definitely isn't hurting anything




http://media.ford.com/newsroom/featu...?release=22100

SteVTEC

meh, the Big 2.5 aren't going anywhere. They both have plenty of products and lots of customers. If anything, one of them will just declare bankruptcy, restructure and dissolve union contracts, and then come back stronger than ever. The brands aren't going anywhere. The market share slip that the Big 2.5 are seeing is still probably nothing compared to what Mitsubishi saw and they're still around aren't they? Maybe those analysts had a different definition of "kick the bucket" but if you guys are thinking "close the doors, layoff everybody" I think you're wrong.

Yes, how horrible it is that they "did it to themselves" by being outstanding corporate citizens of this country by providing so many great benefits to thousands upon thousands of auto workers for all these decades. They did it because they could, in a time when they were much more profitable and they shared the wealth. Times change, though. Oh well, it'll all get sorted out one way or another, sooner or later.

Lil4X

A number of brands have disappeared simply due to the way cars are marketed now. Once GM had Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac. Chrysler built a hierarchy that ran from Plymouth on the bottom, through Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler, and for a time, the Imperial, the on again, off again separate brand. Ford did the same, with Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. These hierarchies were built within each major automaker to allow a "GM man", a "Chrysler man" or a "Ford man" an upward path.

You started out with a Chevy, and as you became more affluent over the years, you moved up the ladder. Over at Chrysler, you did the same, moving up withing the brand structure from basic amenities to a full-boat luxury car. But model marketing has changed. Where once fifty years ago or more when you bought a car you had a choice of three basic options: radio, heater, and a clock. Early in the '50's, a few brands received a couple of specialty models that included usually a slightly nicer interior, a little more chrome, and maybe some special paint, usually a two-tone (or "tutone") finish, and possibly a bigger engine. By the late fifties, power steering and power brakes were universally available.

Now, within the Chevy line you had a hierarchy - Biscayne (formerly the Delray), Bel Air, and by '58, the Bel Air Impala at the top. Brands were subdividing models to allow the customer to move up within the marque. Rather than move up from a Biscayne to a Bel Air, you could make a lateral move into a basic Pontiac Chieftain. This marketing practice was thought to produce even more brand loyalty. Who cares if a customer moves up from a Chevy to a Pontiac? It's all going into the same pocket. Just keep him out of a Dodge or a Merc.

All of this tended to produce inbreeding. Except for styling and a few technical changes along the way, cars were being engineered and assembled in basically the same way as the Model T Ford well into the 1970's. Finally with the introduction of the Chrysler "K" car, the industry began re-thinking the design and manufacture process. Model distinctions began to blur as long options lists made it possible to tailor an individual car to a customer's taste.

Today, the Cobalt, Malibu, Monte Carlo, and Impala clearly approach different markets. The range of SUV's and trucks is similarly structured to provide for differences in application, rather than status. More options and sub-brands within a brand name allow the upwardly-mobile to satisfy their quest for status. Specialty models like the HHR and the Corvette address very specific markets, where once a grocery-getter or a performance car had to be assembled from among a few options - a practical six or a honkin' big V-8.

Overseas products like the Opel, Holden, and Suzuki are closely tied to the GM family, who share platforms and components across international boundaries and product lines. It's a brave new world out there. It's going to be . . . interesting.

Onelove

The new Tundra is going to put a SERIOUS hurting on Ford. They are already in trouble and rely quite a bit on the F150 and fleet sales to help keep afloat, this new competition in their bread and butter is going to be very tough on the brand if they don't diversify.

UberNoob

i think it is Ford thats going down first

GM has been doing lots of things right lately so i doubt they will be giving up that easily

SteVTEC

I'm surprised nobody is saying Chrysler will die.

They have massive inventory problems, nobody buys the Crossfire, the Charger is a big flop, the 300 is yesterday's news, their trucks sell far less than GM/Ford, nobody is buying the Commander, WTF is a Nitro, and I've hardly seen any of the new Neon replacement on the road. I've seen like one, and that's why I don't even remember what it's called. On top of that most of their cars are fugly (opinion), the interiors are horrible and worse than Hyundai, and they're not even very fuel efficient either. The new Sebring is said to be nothing but styling cues from tons of other cars too. About the only thing they have that really sell are their minivans, but I'm not sure there's a whole ton of profit in those.

So of the Big 2.5, I'd say GM and Ford are in the best shape of the bunch and that Chrysler is on the shakiest ground. There are plenty of GM and Ford vehicles that I would seriously consider buying these days, but about ZERO from Chrysler.

SteVTEC

I doubt it, but they already are diversifying. The Fusion trios are excellent cars along with the Five Hundred, and they'll get even better when the 3.5L engine is out. The Focus sells very well too, and always has. And looks like the Edge-based crossovers got delayed a few weeks, but they should sell really well also.

mmarshall

The problem, though, is that the new Tundra, ( a true full-sizer at last ) is MUCH too late....it should have been introduced years ago. Toyota has screwed around basically, since 1994 and the first T100's, marketing mid-size trucks and mid-size engines as " full-size " when they, in fact, were NOT full-size. Now, finally, the 2007 Tundra IS a true full-sizer....but it is long overdue, and only time will tell if Toyota can make up the lost ground. Nissan, when the Titan was introduced, unlike Toyota, did it right the first time and made it a true full-sizer from the start, but quality and assembly problems have hurt it from the getgo.

Incendiary

@ SteVTec: I think the Neon replacement is the Nitro...

@ another poster: There've been several articles about how the Tundra is likely not going to put that huge a dent on F-150 or other American truck sales because of intense loyalty. I guess we'll see what happens.

Gojirra99

plus Ford sells 700k+ F-150's each year, & Toyota does not have the capacity to build more than 200K Tundra's a year anyway IIRC, I think the American trucks will lose some sales, but they'll still be OK . . .

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Agreed. I'm still very impressed with my '06 Explorer Limited and our '04 F-150 (newest style) FX4.

@lpher

Yepp, with the newish focus, mondeo, s-max and c-max and what not...they seem to be on the right track in europe

Cornellian

I think Ford should go first!!

Only because they produce useless **** of S*** and don't realize that market nowadays calls for fuel efficient cars. Not producing bigger and bigger and bigger SUVs.

Also, a friend of mine who worked at Ford told me that Bill Ford was an Acehole. Even a Janitor at the company makes close to $40/hr. WTF is that about?!?! No engineers that start out in the industry make that much money...