Ask the Car People.SM


GM News, New Models and Market Share - READ ONLY

32000 messages,  Last post on Feb 14, 2013 at 7:24 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Automotive News

Messages Page 3113 of 3201

#31116 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [uplanderguy] by lemko

Jan 24, 2013 (7:20 am)

Replying to: uplanderguy (Jan 23, 2013 3:43 pm)
I read that the sale of the Packard plant in Detroit only brought $750K.
 
Somebody bought that colossal ruin? What for?

#31117 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [lemko] by uplanderguy

Jan 24, 2013 (7:45 am)

Replying to: lemko (Jan 24, 2013 7:20 am)
I can't recall. I think I read that at the old Studebaker Museum archives 20 years ago in the '57 Annual Report.
 
The archives at that time were in a non-descript building a couple miles south of the old museum, and I remember the older-lady archivist telling me when I went to leave at lunchtime, to have my car key "ready" between my thumb and index finger so I didn't waste time fumbling to get into my car.
 
A friend of mine whose Dad was a Packard and Studebaker dealer, got a piece of the original lobby tile flooring from the Packard facility on E. Grand Blvd. in Detroit there a couple years ago, and had it mounted and framed. He was lucky to get that I think. But then I love stuff like that. The desk I'm working on right now is a glass-covered Parts Department door from the Carl E. Filer Stude-Packard-MB dealer in my hometown of Greenville, PA. The door has a large round, 'red ball' "Studebaker Parts and Accessories" decal on it. I paid fifty bucks for the door about eight or so years ago, from the building's current owner (it's a laundromat).

#31118 of 32000 racking up losses in the EU by Stever@Edmunds HOST

Jan 24, 2013 (8:05 am)

"General Motors Co., seeing Germany at risk of slipping into recession, may shutter a factory in that country two years earlier than planned as the European auto market sinks for a sixth straight year.
 
"They are trying to get in front of the trouble and have come to the realization that it is a very long road ahead," said Jeff Schuster, an industry analyst with LMC Automotive. "My view is that this is the painful reality of what needs to be done across Western Europe."
 
GM may shut German site early (Detroit News)

#31119 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [busiris] by keystonecarfan

Jan 24, 2013 (8:54 am)

Replying to: busiris (Jan 23, 2013 2:06 pm)
busiris: What you omitted was that GM and Ford did the very same thing (underestimating the foreign competition), yet MB had no management influence over either of them. All 3 were suffering from what I called "domestic-itus".
 
All three were still very dependent on the U.S. market, and that market tanked dramatically in 2008. That is the common denominator.

#31120 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [keystonecarfan] by busiris

Jan 24, 2013 (9:20 am)

Replying to: keystonecarfan (Jan 24, 2013 8:54 am)
All three were still very dependent on the U.S. market, and that market tanked dramatically in 2008. That is the common denominator.
 
Exactly! So, when the reckoning day came for Chrysler, it wasn't because of the former merger with Daimler. My point all along...
 
I remember reading an article written by a now-forgotten financial analyst in 2008/9 that called the big-3 "truck manufacturers that also sold cars".
 
I thought tat was a pretty good analysis of the big-3 at the time.

#31121 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [keystonecarfan] by tlong

Jan 24, 2013 (11:38 am)

Replying to: keystonecarfan (Jan 24, 2013 8:54 am)
All three were still very dependent on the U.S. market, and that market tanked dramatically in 2008. That is the common denominator.
 
Honda is also extremely dependent on the US market, yet had nowhere near the problems.
 
IMHO the common denominator is the UAW and the inept US management for many years, partly due to complacency after decades of market leadership.

#31122 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [busiris] by keystonecarfan

Jan 24, 2013 (12:30 pm)

Replying to: busiris (Jan 24, 2013 9:20 am)
Daimler was responsible for the Dodges, Chryslers and Jeeps developed when it owned the company.
 
The products were hardly stellar - with a few exceptions (the 300/Charger and Grand Cherokee) they were INFERIOR to what GM and Ford were offering at that time. A Dodge Caliber, for example, was inferior to a Ford Focus or Chevrolet Cobalt (let alone a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla). The Dodge Stratus/Avenger and Chrysler Sebring developed under Daimler's watch received terrible reviews.
 
Daimler bears sole responsbility for those cars. Are you really going to call the Dodge Caliber a great vehicle, or allow Daimler to escape responsibility for it when it was calling the shots from Germany (this is on the record) and Daimler appointees were running Chrysler (this is also on the record)?
 
Just because all three experienced trouble at the same time doesn't mean it was all for the same reasons. And note that Ford never declared bankruptcy.
 
Nor were the companies equal. The team assembled by the Obama Administration almost considered letting Chrysler go under, for example, as they were unimpressed with its vehicle line-up and figured that the country's economy could withstand the "hit". Meanwhile, they were seriously impresssed with the vehicles that GM either had just introduced, or was preparing to introduce.

#31123 of 32000 Government interference with GM by xrunner2

Jan 24, 2013 (1:02 pm)

Replying to: keystonecarfan (Jan 24, 2013 12:30 pm)
Per Keystone: " Meanwhile, they were seriously impresssed with the vehicles that GM either had just introduced, or was preparing to introduce."
 
That is good reason why General Motors, the good parts of it, would have survived and flourished somehow under a standard bankruptcy process without government interference from the Obama Administration.
 
Airlines and other companies had previously went through bankruptcy.
 
In the case of GM, bondholders would have been treated fairly by law rather than what had happened.

#31124 of 32000 Re: Government interference with GM [xrunner2] by bpizzuti

Jan 24, 2013 (1:36 pm)

Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 24, 2013 1:02 pm)
Keep in mind it was not one but two Administrations that gave GM a government bailout. Two different, theoretically opposite ideologies, also.
 
The bondholders were done. GM's execs had Bush bought and paid for, and GM's union labor already owned Obama. Bondholders never ever stood a chance.

#31125 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [keystonecarfan] by busiris

Jan 24, 2013 (1:57 pm)

Replying to: keystonecarfan (Jan 24, 2013 12:30 pm)

Just because all three experienced trouble at the same time doesn't mean it was all for the same reasons. And note that Ford never declared bankruptcy.
 
Each to his own opinion.
 
There is no question that the 3 domestic automakers all suffered from the very same problems.
 
They shared the same labor forces (UAW), and they all hit the wall simultaneously. To attempt to exonerate Chrysler and blame its problems on Daimler is simply a one dimensional view of a multifaceted problem, and I say that without owning, either now, in the past, or any plans in the future, a MB product.
 
IMO, its like blaming your BIL for your car's imploded transmission last week because he drove it once 5 years ago.
 
I won't go into your comment regarding Ford, since its been bludgeoned to death so many times already on these forums.

Messages Page 3113 of 3201

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement