GM bankruptcy
05-29-09, 11:25 AM
#61
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Park Ridge IL
Posts: 2,485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM to File for Bankruptcy on Monday, U.S. will still Invest Additional $30 billion
Come Monday, June 1st General Motors will file bankruptcy papers. This is according to an official close to the situation. The action is expected to take between 60 and 90 days, which is considerably longer than the 28 days taken by Chrysler LLC's bankruptcy filing process.
The good news though is that the Obama administration will pump an extra US$30 billion into GM to add to the US$19.4 billion it has already spent as part of a sweetener to bondholders. Under a new restructured GM the bondholders would get 10 percent of equity with warrants to buy an extra 15 percent. A report says at least 35 percent of them will approve the restructuring plan under which all this would happen.
Some are not happy with the new offer. A group called the Main Street Bondholders said in a statement: "The U.S. government appears to overtly favour the UAW members over America's seniors and retirees..."
The massive US$30 billion loan would be converted into equity and GM would only have to repay US$8 billion of it. The majority of the rest would stay with the government as equity. The state's stake in the company as a result would be 72.5 percent. However, should the UAW trust fund and bondholders exercise their warrants this portion would be reduced to 55 percent. GM will likely become a private entity for up to 18 months after which its shares would be publicly traded again.
Meanwhile GM Europe insists that despite reports to the contrary, the two bidders who want the Opel/ Vauxhall business are committed to keeping the Vauxhall manufacturing facility in the UK going. The two bidders are Fiat of Italy and Magna of Canada.
The good news though is that the Obama administration will pump an extra US$30 billion into GM to add to the US$19.4 billion it has already spent as part of a sweetener to bondholders. Under a new restructured GM the bondholders would get 10 percent of equity with warrants to buy an extra 15 percent. A report says at least 35 percent of them will approve the restructuring plan under which all this would happen.
Some are not happy with the new offer. A group called the Main Street Bondholders said in a statement: "The U.S. government appears to overtly favour the UAW members over America's seniors and retirees..."
The massive US$30 billion loan would be converted into equity and GM would only have to repay US$8 billion of it. The majority of the rest would stay with the government as equity. The state's stake in the company as a result would be 72.5 percent. However, should the UAW trust fund and bondholders exercise their warrants this portion would be reduced to 55 percent. GM will likely become a private entity for up to 18 months after which its shares would be publicly traded again.
Meanwhile GM Europe insists that despite reports to the contrary, the two bidders who want the Opel/ Vauxhall business are committed to keeping the Vauxhall manufacturing facility in the UK going. The two bidders are Fiat of Italy and Magna of Canada.
05-29-09, 03:10 PM
#65
Pole Position
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American cars were not more expensive than foreign, they were just crappy, fugly, poorly built, with vomit inducing interiors. Since the 80ies until about 2-3 years ago, there was not a single semi decent American car.
Nowadays however they are improving. At least Ford and GM are, Chrysler is still building pure junk. But nowadays the unions are indeed creepling them. What they need to do now is tell the unions to take a hike, and hire new workers who are willing to do reasonable work for reasonable compensation. And keep building cars like current Malibu, Fusion, Taurus, MKS, CTS/CTS-V, Corvette. And now would be the best opportunity for GM/Ford to get a nice cush of the market, because the Japanese who were once known for high quality now dropped the ball. Just look at any new Toyota/Honda/Nissan, they are cheaply made and have nasty interiors.
Nowadays however they are improving. At least Ford and GM are, Chrysler is still building pure junk. But nowadays the unions are indeed creepling them. What they need to do now is tell the unions to take a hike, and hire new workers who are willing to do reasonable work for reasonable compensation. And keep building cars like current Malibu, Fusion, Taurus, MKS, CTS/CTS-V, Corvette. And now would be the best opportunity for GM/Ford to get a nice cush of the market, because the Japanese who were once known for high quality now dropped the ball. Just look at any new Toyota/Honda/Nissan, they are cheaply made and have nasty interiors.
05-29-09, 07:39 PM
#66
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lutz Tells Letterman That Chevy Volt Will Sell for Approximately $32,500
(With video from his apperance)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=148667
(With video from his apperance)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=148667
NEW YORK — Consumers can expect to pay around $32,500 for the Chevrolet Volt when it arrives in showrooms in early 2011, retiring GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said Wednesday on CBS' Late Night with David Letterman. In effect, this is the first official word from General Motors about the anticipated sticker price of the automaker's first mass-produced electric car.
"We've got 50 of them now," Lutz told Letterman, describing the status of the Volt. "We'll build a couple hundred more for testing."
When asked about pricing, he replied: "Our best estimate is right around $40,000 [and after a government rebate of about $7,500], the customer is looking at 32 and 1/2."
Lutz also said that the Volt "will be built in the United States and exported all over the world."
He said the Volt will begin to trickle into dealerships at the end of 2010, with "real showroom availability in early 2011."
"With any luck at all, I'll get one of these babies free," Letterman joked.
Lutz and a production version of the Volt shared the spotlight with Letterman for nearly seven minutes. Letterman explained that Lutz was invited to be a guest after Tesla Motors' Elon Musk was a guest on the show on April 29. Letterman took several vicious swipes at the Volt during Musk's appearance, prompting Lutz to fire back on the GM FastLane blog.
"CBS called and said 'Hey, jackass, GM wants to put a car on the show,' " Letterman said in advance of Lutz's appearance.
During his appearance, Lutz explained the failure of GM's two-passenger electric EV1, after Letterman asked if that vehicle could have been "enough to keep financial problems away."
"No," Lutz said. "They probably cost us over $100,000 apiece to build. We were unable to sell them. After a billion dollars, the finance guys [at GM] said 'that's enough' and we terminated it."
Unlike the Tesla Roadster and Model S, the Chevrolet Volt is not fully electric. The Volt can run in full-electric mode for around 40 miles, and then the car's gasoline engine kicks in. Letterman asked Lutz, "Why doesn't GM have a car that's solely electric?"
"We can," Lutz said, without offering details. He added: "We can't survive on doing $100,000 cars," in a reference to the price of the Tesla Roadster.
Inside Line says: Car guy Letterman shows some respect for the Chevy Volt, and GM gets some much-needed positive publicity. — Anita Lienert, Correspondent
"We've got 50 of them now," Lutz told Letterman, describing the status of the Volt. "We'll build a couple hundred more for testing."
When asked about pricing, he replied: "Our best estimate is right around $40,000 [and after a government rebate of about $7,500], the customer is looking at 32 and 1/2."
Lutz also said that the Volt "will be built in the United States and exported all over the world."
He said the Volt will begin to trickle into dealerships at the end of 2010, with "real showroom availability in early 2011."
"With any luck at all, I'll get one of these babies free," Letterman joked.
Lutz and a production version of the Volt shared the spotlight with Letterman for nearly seven minutes. Letterman explained that Lutz was invited to be a guest after Tesla Motors' Elon Musk was a guest on the show on April 29. Letterman took several vicious swipes at the Volt during Musk's appearance, prompting Lutz to fire back on the GM FastLane blog.
"CBS called and said 'Hey, jackass, GM wants to put a car on the show,' " Letterman said in advance of Lutz's appearance.
During his appearance, Lutz explained the failure of GM's two-passenger electric EV1, after Letterman asked if that vehicle could have been "enough to keep financial problems away."
"No," Lutz said. "They probably cost us over $100,000 apiece to build. We were unable to sell them. After a billion dollars, the finance guys [at GM] said 'that's enough' and we terminated it."
Unlike the Tesla Roadster and Model S, the Chevrolet Volt is not fully electric. The Volt can run in full-electric mode for around 40 miles, and then the car's gasoline engine kicks in. Letterman asked Lutz, "Why doesn't GM have a car that's solely electric?"
"We can," Lutz said, without offering details. He added: "We can't survive on doing $100,000 cars," in a reference to the price of the Tesla Roadster.
Inside Line says: Car guy Letterman shows some respect for the Chevy Volt, and GM gets some much-needed positive publicity. — Anita Lienert, Correspondent
Are we all cleared up?
05-29-09, 08:06 PM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Even with rebates who is going with 40k to spend in a Chevy dealership? They are missing the entire gotdamn point again. At that price point expectations change from a dealership, service, IMAGE, everything. People are not lining up for 40k Caddies, do they think people will pay 40k for a Volt?
THe 32k involves tax credits. So that means you pay up front for the car and write off the credit.
Then this is a low volume car. I can't see how this is profitable or turns things around.
Its like trying to build a champioship basketball team around Eddie House.
THe 32k involves tax credits. So that means you pay up front for the car and write off the credit.
Then this is a low volume car. I can't see how this is profitable or turns things around.
Its like trying to build a champioship basketball team around Eddie House.
05-29-09, 08:51 PM
#68
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's just take the Volt for what it is. It's the first car of it's kind and will come with the usual price premium for a new technology that even Toyota can't match [yet]. I think there will be plenty of people lining up for it.
How come tons of people so easily drop $40K for a 3-series but the idea of a Volt that is 10 times more advanced does not warrant the cost? I'd take one Volt over a 3-series and C-class together! No question.
How come tons of people so easily drop $40K for a 3-series but the idea of a Volt that is 10 times more advanced does not warrant the cost? I'd take one Volt over a 3-series and C-class together! No question.
05-29-09, 09:22 PM
#69
Moderator
Let's just take the Volt for what it is. It's the first car of it's kind and will come with the usual price premium for a new technology that even Toyota can't match [yet]. I think there will be plenty of people lining up for it.
How come tons of people so easily drop $40K for a 3-series but the idea of a Volt that is 10 times more advanced does not warrant the cost? I'd take one Volt over a 3-series and C-class together! No question.
How come tons of people so easily drop $40K for a 3-series but the idea of a Volt that is 10 times more advanced does not warrant the cost? I'd take one Volt over a 3-series and C-class together! No question.
05-29-09, 09:23 PM
#70
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: MA/MD
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM in Europe
I thought I'd share the news since there doesn't seem to be a discussion going on regarding the fate of GM's European car brands:
Germany picks Magna to save Opel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8074924.stm
I was actually rooting for Magna all along in the Fiat/Magna/Ripplewood/BAIC competition. I have a feeling Magna will give Opel more in terms of financial resources and be more involved in getting the brand to be more successful in the future than Fiat would have. Also the partnership with the Russian truckmaker Gaz and the financial backing from a Russian bank most likely means that there'll be a new Opel factory opening up in Russia soon, a very sizable auto market with great potential. The labor is going to cost Opel a whole lot less if it shifts some production capacity to the East so I hope Magna left this option open by not signing too many "keep the jobs where they are" agreements with the German government. Britain is in definite trouble though as Vauxhall will probably go the way of the dodo now - really no reason to keep those plants open unless Gordon Brown throws some cash into Magna's pot.
Question to the members in the know: how good are Opel's car nowadays? How do they stack up against the European competition? Are they more/less reliable than Peugeot/Citroen, Renault, VW and Fiat? I expect GM will be giving some help to Opel in the future in terms of technology/sharing parts and chassis with the US models (since the General is keeping 35% of Opel's shares), I just have to wonder if Magna has the resources to keep Opel as an independent company while all of its competitors are so much larger and can take advantage of the economies of scale.
Germany picks Magna to save Opel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8074924.stm
I was actually rooting for Magna all along in the Fiat/Magna/Ripplewood/BAIC competition. I have a feeling Magna will give Opel more in terms of financial resources and be more involved in getting the brand to be more successful in the future than Fiat would have. Also the partnership with the Russian truckmaker Gaz and the financial backing from a Russian bank most likely means that there'll be a new Opel factory opening up in Russia soon, a very sizable auto market with great potential. The labor is going to cost Opel a whole lot less if it shifts some production capacity to the East so I hope Magna left this option open by not signing too many "keep the jobs where they are" agreements with the German government. Britain is in definite trouble though as Vauxhall will probably go the way of the dodo now - really no reason to keep those plants open unless Gordon Brown throws some cash into Magna's pot.
Question to the members in the know: how good are Opel's car nowadays? How do they stack up against the European competition? Are they more/less reliable than Peugeot/Citroen, Renault, VW and Fiat? I expect GM will be giving some help to Opel in the future in terms of technology/sharing parts and chassis with the US models (since the General is keeping 35% of Opel's shares), I just have to wonder if Magna has the resources to keep Opel as an independent company while all of its competitors are so much larger and can take advantage of the economies of scale.
05-29-09, 09:24 PM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let's just take the Volt for what it is. It's the first car of it's kind and will come with the usual price premium for a new technology that even Toyota can't match [yet]. I think there will be plenty of people lining up for it.
How come tons of people so easily drop $40K for a 3-series but the idea of a Volt that is 10 times more advanced does not warrant the cost? I'd take one Volt over a 3-series and C-class together! No question.
How come tons of people so easily drop $40K for a 3-series but the idea of a Volt that is 10 times more advanced does not warrant the cost? I'd take one Volt over a 3-series and C-class together! No question.
You might have a lot of pissed off taxpayers feeling they should get the car for 4k.
I also think its a sensational vehicle if it delivers as promised and I am very much attracted to more fuel efficient vehicles (I love the iPod ish interior too). That said I don't see myself buying it right now.
05-30-09, 01:20 AM
#72
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: MA/MD
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shut. it.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/21/news...ion=2009052113
Unions did not design the flawed cars. Unions did not make the purchasing decisions. All Union's are to GM is an overhead cost that is built into their cars. If their workers took pay cuts across the board a $20,000 car might end up costing $19,000. Are you more likely to buy it now over a Toyota or Nissan? I do not think so. Cost has been only one factor and a small one at that. The problem was not that American car's were more expensive than foreign cars. The problem was MPGs and Quality! Both of these fall on white-collar design engineers, not blue-collar assembly line workers. Quit harping on the little guys and learn to think. Perhaps a business education or 10+ yr in automotive industry? I got that, do you?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/21/news...ion=2009052113
Unions did not design the flawed cars. Unions did not make the purchasing decisions. All Union's are to GM is an overhead cost that is built into their cars. If their workers took pay cuts across the board a $20,000 car might end up costing $19,000. Are you more likely to buy it now over a Toyota or Nissan? I do not think so. Cost has been only one factor and a small one at that. The problem was not that American car's were more expensive than foreign cars. The problem was MPGs and Quality! Both of these fall on white-collar design engineers, not blue-collar assembly line workers. Quit harping on the little guys and learn to think. Perhaps a business education or 10+ yr in automotive industry? I got that, do you?
Unions did not design the flawed cars. Unions did not make the purchasing decisions.
Note: above is a dramatization, numbers not meant to be taken literally.
If their workers took pay cuts across the board a $20,000 car might end up costing $19,000.
Originally Posted by CNN
The union has already agreed to a number of changes in contracts with all the major automakers, including the elimination of the so-called "jobs bank," a program that guaranteed members close to a full salary during the life of the contract if they were laid-off and their unemployment benefits ran out.
GM, Ford and Chrysler had previously promised lifetime health care coverage for about 650,000 U.S. employees, retirees and their family members.
But the cost of providing the coverage had become a major competitive disadvantage compared to the nonunion U.S. plants operated by Asian rivals such as Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC). According to some estimates, the health care expenses added about $1,500 to the cost of producing every vehicle.
It is not just the across the board pay cuts that are needed (actually, were needed quite some time ago). What (in a large part) drove GM and Chrysler into the grave was the uber-expensive health care coverage, the retirement benefits, the vacation time, the overtime pay, the stifling contracts that require the Big Three to pay the UAW whether or not any work is being done or not, the clauses restricting lay-offs of the unnecessary workers and more clauses mandating they are paid the difference between the unemployment benefits and their old wages of the yare laid off, etc, etc., etc. Not too bad for the "little guys", wouldn't you say?
The problem was not that American car's were more expensive than foreign cars. The problem was MPGs and Quality!
By the way, who would send a plague of lobbyists to Washington whenever there was any talk about improving the country's fuel economy standards? Who was it who threw hundreds of thousand of dollars to oppose any new safety standards for the trucks and SUVs for the past who-knows-how-many decades? I guess someone who has 10+ years of experience in the automotive industry would know, so maybe you can tell us.
P.S. I don't like Heritage and I cannot confirm the accuracy of their figures, but here is something rather thought provoking (if true):
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm
It's frustrating to no end to see how the President is playing the role of Neville Chamberlain to the UAW. Doesn't he understand that they'll be back to their old tricks once he sinks billions into GM and Chrysler to save their jobs?
05-30-09, 05:01 AM
#73
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's still two years away from strong availability. But my wife and I are currently considering it. It's hard to make that decision now without knowing what gas prices will be in two years or knowing the confirmed sticker price/tax rebates, ect.
I'm a Toyota guy for the most part, so it also depends on what Toyota will have available at the time. Though it seems like their plug-in version of the Prius won't even come close on the electric only range of the Volt.
I'm a Toyota guy for the most part, so it also depends on what Toyota will have available at the time. Though it seems like their plug-in version of the Prius won't even come close on the electric only range of the Volt.
05-30-09, 05:10 AM
#74
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-30-09, 06:04 AM
#75
Pole Position
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I felt compelled to respond to this as I almost needed the Heimlich maneuver performed on me after hearing you call the UAW "the little guys". The United Autoworkers is an 800 pound gorilla in the automotive industry, not a "little guy".
They certainly didn't. All they did was keep on asking for more and more money from the company's coffers, year after year. When the Big three were pulling $10k in profit from each Expedition and Escalade they were selling and gas was cheap, everyone was happy. What's that, Mr. Gettelfinger? You'd like gold plated faucets in the employee washrooms and a pound of platinum for each hour worked overtime? Won't you settle for silver? No sir, no need to strike, my apologies. And yes, I hope you've enjoyed your 3-month vacation. Sure we had to hire some more UAW members to fill your place while you were in Hawaii and we can't fire them now (whooops!) but you just keep on building those Silverados and Blazers!
Note: above is a dramatization, numbers not meant to be taken literally.
I hope that was just your way of stating that the compensations enjoyed by the UAW members aren't as comparatively humongous as the rest of us might think. Otherwise I'll have to wonder if you've read the CNN article that you brought up as support for your argument.
It is not just the across the board pay cuts that are needed (actually, were needed quite some time ago). What (in a large part) drove GM and Chrysler into the grave was the uber-expensive health care coverage, the retirement benefits, the vacation time, the overtime pay, the stifling contracts that require the Big Three to pay the UAW whether or not any work is being done or not, the clauses restricting lay-offs of the unnecessary workers and more clauses mandating they are paid the difference between the unemployment benefits and their old wages of the yare laid off, etc, etc., etc. Not too bad for the "little guys", wouldn't you say?
It's a tad problematic to fund R&D to improve MPGs and quality when the hundreds of thousands of your predominantly high-school educated workers won't work without the 3-month vacations and $70/hour wages (hyperbole alert here).
By the way, who would send a plague of lobbyists to Washington whenever there was any talk about improving the country's fuel economy standards? Who was it who threw hundreds of thousand of dollars to oppose any new safety standards for the trucks and SUVs for the past who-knows-how-many decades? I guess someone who has 10+ years of experience in the automotive industry would know, so maybe you can tell us.
P.S. I don't like Heritage and I cannot confirm the accuracy of their figures, but here is something rather thought provoking (if true):
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm
It's frustrating to no end to see how the President is playing the role of Neville Chamberlain to the UAW. Doesn't he understand that they'll be back to their old tricks once he sinks billions into GM and Chrysler to save their jobs?
They certainly didn't. All they did was keep on asking for more and more money from the company's coffers, year after year. When the Big three were pulling $10k in profit from each Expedition and Escalade they were selling and gas was cheap, everyone was happy. What's that, Mr. Gettelfinger? You'd like gold plated faucets in the employee washrooms and a pound of platinum for each hour worked overtime? Won't you settle for silver? No sir, no need to strike, my apologies. And yes, I hope you've enjoyed your 3-month vacation. Sure we had to hire some more UAW members to fill your place while you were in Hawaii and we can't fire them now (whooops!) but you just keep on building those Silverados and Blazers!
Note: above is a dramatization, numbers not meant to be taken literally.
I hope that was just your way of stating that the compensations enjoyed by the UAW members aren't as comparatively humongous as the rest of us might think. Otherwise I'll have to wonder if you've read the CNN article that you brought up as support for your argument.
It is not just the across the board pay cuts that are needed (actually, were needed quite some time ago). What (in a large part) drove GM and Chrysler into the grave was the uber-expensive health care coverage, the retirement benefits, the vacation time, the overtime pay, the stifling contracts that require the Big Three to pay the UAW whether or not any work is being done or not, the clauses restricting lay-offs of the unnecessary workers and more clauses mandating they are paid the difference between the unemployment benefits and their old wages of the yare laid off, etc, etc., etc. Not too bad for the "little guys", wouldn't you say?
It's a tad problematic to fund R&D to improve MPGs and quality when the hundreds of thousands of your predominantly high-school educated workers won't work without the 3-month vacations and $70/hour wages (hyperbole alert here).
By the way, who would send a plague of lobbyists to Washington whenever there was any talk about improving the country's fuel economy standards? Who was it who threw hundreds of thousand of dollars to oppose any new safety standards for the trucks and SUVs for the past who-knows-how-many decades? I guess someone who has 10+ years of experience in the automotive industry would know, so maybe you can tell us.
P.S. I don't like Heritage and I cannot confirm the accuracy of their figures, but here is something rather thought provoking (if true):
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm
It's frustrating to no end to see how the President is playing the role of Neville Chamberlain to the UAW. Doesn't he understand that they'll be back to their old tricks once he sinks billions into GM and Chrysler to save their jobs?
1) Starting pay was $44/hr. That is inline with other unions. Just because the union is large in numbers (large being a relative term since they have taken concessions over the past 50 years and the numbers have dwindled) does not mean they aren't the "little guy". They are on the bottom rung of the corporate ladder. How about the executives who rake in millions? Fly private jets, work whatever hours they want, company cars, free meals? Where is the outrage to cut their salaries and perks?
2) Those rights you casually disregard, clauses restricting lay-offs and pay cuts? Those were hard won items brought about with the whole creation of the union idea. Protection of the worker. In this case the American worker. I'd rather have 1000 people making money than 1 executive making millions. Take your guess on who will spread and spend more?
3) Pay rate: won over time. It's not a gift and yes some people do make a lot, but that comes with experience. Even starting at $44, unions workers are not rich by any definition. have you seen the news footage? These people are struggling worse than many in this country right now. Their towns are desolate. Do me a favor and calculate a CEO's hourly rate. Throw up yet? Oh wait, college educated, white male, deserves it right? Those who only graduated high school they can eat dirt and make minimum wage. (snark).
4) 10+ yrs in an industry does not mean I run the industry (and I'm not involved in the OEMs- the industry is huge- but you're probably blind to that fact too). Obviously the Big 3 and the oil industry opposed increased regulation. It sort of helped having 32 out of the last 44 years under GOP (big business, big oil, no regulation party) control.
5) R&D budgets were in no way compromised. Why? Two reasons: you notice the huge influx of high MPG American cars in the past 6 months? The R&D work was done years before. Also if you remember, they were making 30+ mpg cars in the 80's and early 90's. They know how, but saw bigger profits in larger cars. So unless you're going to argue that since the UAW took money (i.e got paid for work) and this some how made the engineers forget how to make a fuel efficient car, I don't quite understand your point on this.
Your lack of empathy is sickening.