Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16701 messages, Last post on Nov 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
They build unreliable junk. Reality The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo. Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.
|
|
|
|
|
They build gas-guzzlers. Reality All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.
|
|
|
|
|
They already got a $25-billion bailout. Reality None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now. |
|
|
|
|
GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs. Reality The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.
|
|
|
|
|
They don't build hybrids. Reality The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009.
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 29, 2008 10:37 am) General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota. Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year. Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year Sounds like a picture of success. Well then, why in your opinion are these companies in such dire straits? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: carnaught (Nov 29, 2008 10:51 am) Collection agencies, pawn shops, and gun sales are doing great. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 29, 2008 11:23 am) Not being an economist or expert, I would have thought that executives and CEO's being paid mufti-millions each year for their expertise would have seen this coming. The multifactorial reasons for these corporations failing are the reason for these unhealthy economic times not necessarily the result of these times
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 29, 2008 10:37 am) Let's put that in perspective, though. 1983 was widely considered one of the bleakest years in automotive history. That year, the domestic industry sold about 5.5 million cars, and of that, GM moved about 3.5 million. Now that's just cars, not trucks. I got these numbers out of an auto encyclopedia, and they tend to separate cars from trucks, although nowadays, the two have become intertwined what with minivans, crossovers, pickups purchased as a second car, etc. It's probably safe to assume though, that between Chevy trucks, GMC, Ford, Dodge, and Jeep, they managed to move another 2 million vehicles. So let's say 7.5 million, total. So for GM, Ford, and Chrysler to only move a million more units 24 years after that disastrous year, really isn't saying much. Especially when you figure that most Chrysler products these days, and an alarming amount of Ford and GM cars, have been sold at deep, deep discounts. FWIW, the only reason GM made money in 1983 was through GMAC financing. If it wasn't for that, they would've been screwed. I'm sure that the next time Consumer Reports updates their auto encyclopedia, this current timeframe will make 1983 look like a cake walk! And yeah, we're in a recession and times are tough for everyone. But I don't hear any rumors of Nissan, Toyota, or Honda declaring bankruptcy. They're hurting, to be sure, but nowhere to the degree that GM, Ford, and especially Chrysler are.
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 29, 2008 10:29 am) Eight divisions with wildly sinking market share. Only a few of the models are world-class competitive. Jobs banks. CEO compensation was $17M in 2007. GM is not going to make it without many radical changes yet to be implemented. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
