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)
16663 messages, Last post on Nov 08, 2009 at 9:32 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 29, 2008 10:41 am) Correction: "initial quality". GM has traditionally done fine in the first year. Then it's all downhill. The Malibu has not been out long enough to evaluate this. And it's only one model.
|
|
|
Without those good paying UAW jobs, you have no one to buy/qualify for those empty homes. Those UAW workers will have NO impact on housing sales in the worst hit states of CA, FL & NV. I recall a neighbor, she worked for American Airlines, she bought all she could when its was below a dollar a share, she put up her entire 401K plan on the line. I recall 1000s of employees putting their faith in Enron stock also. GM is just about as likely to stay out of bankruptcy as ENRON. First, Detroit can make it. The car companies have introduced promising new fuel-efficient models, and U.A.W. workers outproduce their international rivals in eight out of nine categories in which their United States plants compete. If that is true and I don't believe it is. Why is GM losing money even when the economy was booming up to the end of 2007? GM is overweight and poorly managed. Let them die and other automakers will take their place and do a better job of building fuel efficient cars IN THE USA. The most important model Detroit produced in the 20th century was the middle class for many millions of Americans. It was a very poor model with NO plan of sustainability. I think GM figured they would dump all those retirees onto the public from the get go. It is run so much like our worthless Congress it is scary. The only big difference is Congress owns the mint. So they have found they can print money as needed. Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate. So the Koreans can build it and sell it cheaper than a UAW shop in the USA. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler Ford and Chevy trucks still the number one and two best selling vehicles. Built in the USA. High profit, yet GM has lost close to $100 billion in the last 5 years. They were bleeding red ink when everyone else was making big PROFIT. GM has a losing business model. Whether it is the UAW or management they need to just go out of business and let Ford and Chrysler pick up the slack. 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. Who Cares? They are money losers and will be replaced before GM ever gets their act together. Ford has had theirs for 5 years already. Don't forget I owned one of the first 300 Hybrids GMC built. It was nothing to write home about and the mileage was no better. It was just an expensive standby generator. Collection agencies, pawn shops, and gun sales are doing great. On that we agree. With the element that became empowered during this last election, you cannot be to well armed.
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Nov 29, 2008 6:45 am) If that's water under the bridge, then what happened in 1993 should be too. What's good for the goose..... |
|
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
