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 GM News, New Models and Market Share
8501 messages, Last post on Nov 28, 2009 at 10:40 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Nov 10, 2008 12:48 pm) - How many Lambda utes do you need? Was the Traverse necessary? - Did Saab really need to invest the time, the marketing, the engineering into the "Black" series (or whatever goofy lingo they want to call it) only to sell a total of 1500 copies? Does Saab need to exist at all? The brand is about as healthy as Isuzu was. Cutting them loose would save a lot of investment dollars IMO. - How about the engineering it took to add V8 option to the Colorado and Canyon pickups? Why? They were beyond pathetic when they came out and with the hint of 4+ dollar gas, a V8 is the last thing I would've thought they needed to generate sales. How about instead, using that cake to start from scratch? How about NOT letting them wither on the vine for a 10 year life cycle? What a waste. Even piddly little things like the little "GM" badges that go on every vehicle, those don't seem to have made much of an impact? |
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Nov 10, 2008 11:16 am) I think that the US and Canadian governments should sue Daimler for 1/3 the cost, as they are responsible for Chrysler being the shambles that it is.
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Nov 10, 2008 4:41 pm) Someone posted a market share chart. Chrysler is at about the same market share as they were 25 years ago.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 10, 2008 4:52 pm) You know, it's funny. I think that the last 25 years have been a dizzying roller coaster ride for the economy and the public as well. In a simpler time (say, back when you became a phone guy  ) people rolled out of high school and into the factories, worked hard for 45 years (or more), took their pensions, and lived out the rest of their lives quietly. Then came the mid '80's. 55 became the new 65 (yes, retirement age), people had to go to college, then "find themselves" before they went to work, work for as few years as possible (25, 30???) then float down to Fla or Az. to retire for the next 30 or more years. THAT, more than anything stresses pension funds. In a nutshell, for the last 25 years, we as individuals and as big companies have been trying to fund our lavish lifestyles with the market and credit instead of good old fashoned hard work ( even that has been hard to do, as it seems as though our jobs are constantly being threatened by the "world economy"). People seem to think that they are entitled to retire at 55, earn top dollar on their investments no matter what, and pay as little as possible for everything. Personally, I think we should get the highest pay we can, pensions and fully paid health care, and gas under a buck a gallon  , but with these things come the responsibility of not abusing the system, trying to take advantage of every little loophole to get ahead, even if it means stepping on your neighbors head.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 09, 2008 8:44 pm) I support it. They have contributed billions of tax dollars here over the years. If they need some help, I am for it so long as it's fair and paid back. Workers need to contribute also, the unions and their ridged labor practices and wages are very much a contributor to the demise and high costs of manufacturing. In the end, governments have no choice but to help. A collapse of banks, car companies and other large manufacturers can not be allowed or this little recession will become a depression very quickly. I am talking world wide!
|
|
|
Replying to: vanman1 (Nov 10, 2008 6:26 pm) I don't think it will be paid back. I would look at it as money spent to keep the Big 3 afloat. Unlike the Chrysler loans in the early 1980s. Chrysler had a plan and put it to work with the money we loaned them. It was paid back in 4 years with interest. All I hear from GM is we will be broke in the next quarter without the bailout. That does not sound like a loan. It is a gift the same we are giving to all the loser banks that are going belly up. So if Canada has an extra $25 billion USD to give the Big 3 they need to get out the check book. Is it worth it to save 400,000 Canadian jobs? That is about a years wages for those workers. Better hold onto it as you may need to pay long term retirement and unemployment.
|
|
Ideally if the Detroit automakers were as heavily engineering dominated in the upper management ranks as German manufacturers are, I'd say they'd be in a lot better position than their present condition is. The ability of upper management to understand the fundamental aspects of product is important, ask why military hardware manufacturers or aircraft manufacturers in the US can still perform well in spite of everything.
|
|
|
Replying to: aldw (Nov 10, 2008 8:11 pm) Not one more job goes outside of the U.S. from the day they get that money. Build a plant if they have to, but taxpayer money shouldn't go past our borders. That defeats the entire purpose of trying to stimulate the economy. We're supposed to stimulate OUR economy, and not China's or Mexico's. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: aldw (Nov 10, 2008 8:11 pm) Perhaps because the government is paying the bills for the military hardware and they buy from only US concerns? Notice also that Boeing is the last of US makers building commercial aircraft. Where is Douglas? McDonell?, General Dynamics? Hughes? All the commercial aircraft companies are combined into one, Boeing. And the only real competitor is a French based company. Supply and Demand and when there is only 2 suppliers and the demand is there you can charge what you need to. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 10, 2008 7:23 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
