Sign In Join 

You are here: [F] Forums / Automotive News & Views / United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)



United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)

16738 messages,  Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 10:07 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Automotive News


Messages Page 562 of 1675
1
...
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
...
1675
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#5608 of 16738
Re: Myth No. 5 [andre1969] by nvbanker
Nov 30, 2008 (10:29 am)
Reply

Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 29, 2008 4:37 pm)

I think you're right, andre - but check out how well the Tundra does on the proving ground....
 
http://www.fordvehicles.com/2009f150/?page=/durability/
 
Admittedly, it's a Ford site, but the evidence is pretty irrefutable, the camera doesn't lie. The Japanese just don't quite have the truck thing down yet.
#5609 of 16738
Re: I'm Confused ROGELIOV [dallasdude1] by circlew
Nov 30, 2008 (10:34 am)
Reply

 
The point is cash burn is ridiculous at the Det. 3 and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Sure, Wall Street has it's share of failures but please don't tell me we have a bunch of geniuses running Ford, GM or Chrysler!
 
Since you brought up cash flow, how would you rate these auto giants now? Their model is choking them to death because even with the changes put in place, without those massive profits from SUV and truck sales, cash flow positive will be impossible without HUGE cuts now.
 
How do you think they will be able to pay back $25B? I'll wager in June they need more bailout cash.
 
If I had the final say on help to all 3 auto companies, it would be:
 
NO CASH FOR YOU! NEXT!
 

 
Oh, and I'd fire the C.E.O.s today! What gall Mulally had when asked about considering cuts to his compensation.
 
"No, I'm good!" Wagoner: "I am not prepared to comment."
 
Well, "Your FIRED!"
 
Regards,
OW
#5610 of 16738
Re: I'm Confused ROGELIOV [circlew] by fezo
Nov 30, 2008 (1:41 pm)
Reply

Replying to: circlew (Nov 30, 2008 10:34 am)

Mulally may not have phrased things well but he and Ford genuinely don't need the bailout. They aren't the problem.
 
I will grant you that if the vehicle buying portion of the recession continues more than another year then Ford has big time trouble and they could still get sucked down by a GM bankruptcy. My point is that GM is the big problem and the one that actually needs the cash now.
#5611 of 16738
Re: Myth No. 1 [dallasdude1] by lemko
Nov 30, 2008 (2:52 pm)
Reply

Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 29, 2008 11:23 am)

I went to a gun show a couple weeks ago. It was so packed, you could hardly move. I had never seen so many people at this particular gun show. Most of the time, you just see the typical hunters, sportsmen, and enthusiasts, but I saw a lot of Mr. Suburban Joe Average types there and a lot more women. There are a lot of scared angry people out there and it's only going to get a lot worse if 3 million unemployed workers are dumped into the unemployment lines and eventually the welfare rolls. What was once a stable employed person who supported his family via a well-paid manufacturing job may soon be the unstable criminal who will rob, steal, and perhaps kill out of desperation. With three million more potential violent criminals on the streets, I don't like the odds.
#5612 of 16738
Ya know lemko.... by iluvmysephia1
Nov 30, 2008 (3:02 pm)
Reply
it's hard to refute what you say just above this post. And that is one of the reasons that a GM loan/bailout package is so important. It's just hard to fathom it because, unfortunately, the UAW is not going to want to give much in concessions to help Company out. Can't ya just see it coming, the fright and frustration of giving up some of the enormous bene's, main pension payout(this one would really sting Joe wrench-turner). Going to be a World of Hurt, to quote Patterson Hood in one of his Drive-By Trucker songs.
#5613 of 16738
Re: Myth No. 5 [dieselone] by dallasdude1
Nov 30, 2008 (3:15 pm)
Reply

Replying to: dieselone (Nov 30, 2008 8:00 am)

As you have never ever driven the last Silverado AWD SS. However, look at the below link and tell what you think.
 
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/112_0902_2009_half_ton_truck_comparis- on/index.html
#5614 of 16738
Re: Myth No. 3 [tlong] by dallasdude1
Nov 30, 2008 (3:29 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tlong (Nov 29, 2008 3:17 pm)

Go ahead and buy one of those Honda Hybrids, they are a joke and my co workers son had to roll one into his new car note. I was asking, just to be informed and he mentioned it turn off at every stop and that its was a pile of junk. I think the technology isn't there just yet.
Then too, to be fair, the Hybrid Tahoe is noisy pile of junk too. Thats from owners. I might look into what Edmonds has on the Hybrids.
#5615 of 16738
Re: Myth No. 5 [dallasdude1] by dieselone
Nov 30, 2008 (3:59 pm)
Reply

Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 30, 2008 3:15 pm)

As you have never ever driven the last Silverado AWD SS. However, look at the below link and tell what you think.
 
I haven't because I don't know anyone who's wasted their money on a Silverado SS.
 
As for the link you posted, I was discussing the 5.3 and 6.0 that were saddled to the 4 speeds in the 1/2 ton Silverado's as the 6.2/6speed was not offered until 2009 . GM finally can beat Nissan and basically match Toyota in the power department but gets trounced in fuel economy. Similar performance to the Toyota, but worst fuel economy of the group. Those are the slowest 0-60 times I've ever seen for a Tundra. Most I've seen have been in the 6.2 range, I've seen Escalade 0-60 times around 6.2 also with the 6.2/6speed, so I'll chalk it up to testing conditions.
 
I'm not saying Nissan or Toyota build a better truck as I think the Ford and Chevy are tops, but in the powertrain dept. Ford is still way behind and GM has been, but they still need big cubes to get anything done and fuel economy sucks with the 6.2 or 6.0L. How does GM offer the tallest gearing and still get the worst fuel economy (Ok, exept for Nissan which has a taller axle ratio, but I believe the trans gears or shorter). I've seen several truck/suv tests where GM has higher rated EPA mileage but ends up with the worst observed mileage. Particularly with the 6.0L and 6.2.
#5616 of 16738
Re: Myth No. 3 [dallasdude1] by dieselone
Nov 30, 2008 (4:15 pm)
Reply

Replying to: dallasdude1 (Nov 30, 2008 3:29 pm)

Then too, to be fair, the Hybrid Tahoe is noisy pile of junk too. Thats from owners. I might look into what Edmonds has on the Hybrids.
 
Hmm, I've never heard that before. I finally saw my first Tahoe Hybrid that wasn't on a dealer lot the other day.
 
Where is all the noise coming from? Electrical Relays? Or the trans setup, or could it be low resistance tires?
 
The Hybrid Tahoe is interesting with the 20mpg achievable city rating, but the reduced tow rating (6,000lbs won't cut it for me) and huge price just isn't worth it IMO, unless of course gas goes well north of $5/gal.
 
Will Ford or Chevy just give me a diesel Suburban or Expedition! I'd bask in my diesel torque glory and never bad mouth a Ford or GM v8 again:)

Messages Page 562 of 1675
1
...
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
...
1675
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

You are here: [F] Forums / Automotive News & Views / United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement