skinny gs

Somebody was right on. When Toyota was investing in the Prius(which did not sell in the early years) GM was investing in Hummer.

tex2670

Just to be clear--GMAC is a separate company, and is in the finance industry, not the auto industry. They are not in the business of selling cars--they are in the business of lending money, and, as part of that, getting re-paid.

This is the whole "unavailability of credit" part of the equation. Lenders are doing a 180 on practices of the past few years with the "no income verification" loans.

tex2670

Absolutely true--but, at the same time, Toyota was building up its truck to compete with American trucks, and developing SUVs and "cross overs". The RAV4 and RX300 were at the forefront of the trend. There's no reason a company like GM couldn't develop highly competitive vehicles across the many classes they sell.

-J-P-L-

Anyone find it odd that so many people (including much of the media) is constantly saying that "the Big 3 are building cars that nobody wants" as well as other words that suggest that there is no reason for these companies to exist?

Since most discussions are about the US market, American car buyers, and sales, shouldn't we take a real look at what US auto sales really look like. It seems as though the media and general public doesn't have any idea where the Big 3 stand because tehy would have you believe they are dead.

Would it surprise anyone that GM, Ford, and Chrysler still own 3 out of the top 4 spots for sales in the US? But "nobody wants them"? Even Chrysler, "that lousy car company", is chosen by far more than Honda, Nissan, VW, BMW, Hyundai, and everything else outside of GM, Ford, and Toyota.

GM is still easily the best selling automaker in America and yet the closest to bankruptcy. Crazy, huh? But it's all about costs, and GM is buried in them.

I bring this up because it seems that people are unaware that the Big 3 remain the most successful along with Toyota in America and people still DO want them regardless of all this bashing being spread though the media and among the public.

The sales chart below shows this quite clearly...

RXGS

iTrader: (2)

While i don't like many American cars, i ill say this, losing them would be a shame, i mean at one point, American cars were great, the 64 continental, and 72 eldorado are just cars that come to mind, but i guess this is what happens after building 20 years of crap, have dealers who do real crooked stuff and recently resort to putting people who buy imports go on a guilt trip. I also hope this teaches those who only look at badge and see american then everything else. If you don't know what i mean, go south and see basically everyone with an American pickup ect.

LexFather

This is a GREAT point. GM and Toyota basically both sold I think 9.3 million vehicles.
Toyota made 17 billion or so
GM LOST 9 billion or so

WTF???Its NOT sales.

FKL

So it looks as if the republicans are more interested in their homestate foreign manufactures than America's own. BTW, the $71/labor dollar hr is a pipe dream delusional figure. Shame on them for playing union bust games. They are actually advocating lower, non union wages, just like in thier state-subsidized plants Pathetic, sad, and makes me angry.

CDNROCKIES

The rest of the world is not going to feel bad about a union that clearly doesn't recognize that they are essentially killing the industry that provides them their jobs in the first place.

The primary issue, outside of non-competitive vehicles, is that GFC are clearly handcuffed by the ridiculous labor contracts that they are bound to.

$71/hr isn't the average hourly wage, but the ridiculous number that is real once you factor in benefits. Read the other post in Car Chat about this and you will see that the comparable number is $69 per hour vs. $48 per hour at the "other" manufacturers.

Anybody with any business acumen will recognize that a company that is paying on average $21 per hour more per employee is at a competitive disadvantage.

They are not advocating lower wages, but simply pointing out that it is possible to operate a viable auto company when not bound to UAW contacts. Shouldn't the American people expect a company to operate at optimal efficiency if they are going to subsidize it?

The UAW is clearly one of the primary culprits in why GFC are facing their impending failure.

I8ABMR

Bottom line: They will fail because most american cars are sub standard, unreliable , inefficient, and poorly made by over paid workers. That is why they will fail. Even if they get the bail out they will be just buying time

Indio

iTrader: (1)

Great point, the import plants started out ahead because they were given tax breaks and credits to lure them here, they also have very few retirees because they have only been here a few years, by contrast GM has 363,000 retirees and this all adds up to higher operating costs, before you dismiss this as unnecessary expense what if your old man or someone you knew busted his *** for 35 years and was promised health care and a pension after retirement?

As for the UAW is killing them argument GM and Ford have built cars for 100 years, Chrysler 83, if the UAW was going to do them in they would have been gone a long time ago, not many can boast that much longevity, looks grim now to be sure but it looks bad for everyone.

For those that want them to go out you may just get your wish, let's see how much cheering you do when they take the supplier chains down with them and the imports have to scramble to find replacement suppliers then pass the MUCH higher operating costs on to you, good luck.

tex2670

Well--then I guess it's obvious that sheer sales volume does not equal being successful.

tex2670

It's been a long time since the American cars were the mark to beat. They have had a long long time to "learn" their lessons getting their a$$es handed to them by Japanese makes. I don't see anything being "learned" by the current situation.

tex2670

The Big 3 have not shame asking for billions for a bailout. If they truly wanted to compete with the foreign mfgs that built plants here, they would have gone to the govt and asked for incentives, tax breaks and grants to fully modernize their plants to compete. But--this would require they put their own money in. Did this happen? I don't think it did. for example, it seems that every time I read about an 09 car with a FOUR SPEED AUTO tranny, it seems to be an American car. Meanwhile, Japanese and Germans are up to 7 and 8 speeds (agreed--probably unnecessary--but a 4 speed? Really?)

RolxuSC400

Wow this has been a great thread to read.

Not sure where this whole bailout will end up but I believe some of the oversights/mistake of AIG bailout is trying to be prevented in this legislation. While the govt realized it was necessary to stabilize AIG for the same reasons they are looking to help GFC (potential domino effect of a failure) they dont want to end up with the negative fallout resulting from that infusion of capital again.

Also, someone brought up volume of cars and rankings, by volume, of carmakers. It doesnt say how many of those vehicles ended up in "end users" hands vs. fleet sales. Volume doesnt mean anything in my opinion if your selling to rental company's and other fleet uses and if they have to sell double the number of vehicles of their closest competitor to even cover their costs well then thats a concern.

This bailout argument wont be won here in this forum for there are alot of solid rational arguments for both sides. I just hope that whichever side "wins" all considerations are taken for the fallout that will ensue. I think if the bailout does go through a "car czar" might be a good thing IF they have the business/technical/industry experience necessary to drive this bus.

rpx13

iTrader: (3)

I was listening to Adam Carolla the other morning and simply stated: "Its not necessarily because the Americans are making crappy cars. It's because theyre not making enough superb cars."