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 Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
3958 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: rogeliov (Nov 24, 2008 10:00 pm) If you consider a year and a half old PU truck obsolete. The dealer was offering me low book on a full priced Denali. That is an insult to my way of thinking. I proved the value of the truck by finding a buyer willing to pay a decent though not what I would consider a great price for the truck. It was not a roll bar. It was a locking rollup bed cover. The truck was always garaged and did not have a single scratch. It did not get near the mileage EPA suggests. It did much better on a trip through NM and CO. Highest was 22 MPG. Around San Diego I averaged about 16.5 MPG. By the way I got $16,500 for my 7.5 year old Suburban that cost me $35k in 1998. It all adds up to the deterioration of GM from the dealers all the way to the CEO. Bailing them out is throwing good money after bad. I feel bad for those that bought GM stock at $75 and now it is worth about $3.50.
|
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Nov 25, 2008 6:17 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Nov 25, 2008 6:23 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Nov 24, 2008 5:03 pm) Even the Accord loses over $4k in depreciation in year 1. I could have had an Impala for a price that would have virtually made depreciation a non-factor. Nobody pays MSRP, that's just the number that would give GM a viable business plan Well, my Dad's 2003 Regal, purchased used in September 2003, was $10,995. With tax, tags, an extended warranty to ease his mind, and EVERYTHING, the out-the-door price was $12,840. Now this was just the LS model with the regular 3.8 V-6, so it wasn't supercharged. Also, no leather, no sunroof, plastic wheelcovers. To this day, we still don't know why the car was so cheap. It had 19,500 miles on it when Dad bought it, and we knew it had been a rental car, because of some paperwork in the glovebox. The build date on the doorjamb sticker was June 2002, so this car was a very early '03, but still, an '03. That was 5 years ago, and nothing of any interest has gone wrong with the car. I'd imagine that if it was hiding any problems, they would have surfaced by now. My only guess is that the dealership had the car on their lot for awhile, and just wanted it cleared out to make room for something else. I remember they also had a steel blue 2002 Intrepid parked next to the Regal on the lot, for $8995. It had around 39,500 miles on it, and was a base model with the 2.7. Basically, the same car as my 2000 Intrepid. While I have a preference for the Intrepid, I think the Regal was definitely worth the $2,000 price premium. If nothing else, to get a year newer car with 20,000 fewer miles on it. The Regal was also better equipped, having ABS, an oil life monitor, tire pressure monitor, torquier engine, etc. I remember telling my Dad that if he didn't buy that Regal, I would! Oh, as for MSRP, IIRC a 2003 Regal LS stickered for around $26K. But, like you said, nobody pays MSRP. I guess it probably would've sold for more like $21-22K? |
|
|
Good article posted elsewhere this morning: Alex Taylor III writes: Wagoner's biggest flaw may be that he has been too forgiving. Here is a company that has lost more than $72 billion in the past four years, and yet you can count on one hand the number of executives who have been reassigned or lost their job. After spending $1 billion to shut down Oldsmobile, Wagoner has allowed GM's other weak divisions to live on despite their fading resonance in the marketplace. (A competitor says Wagoner is "too fundamentally decent" to cut off dealerships and put their employees on the street. GM says closing divisions isn't cost-effective.) Nonetheless, the dedication and thoughtfulness that Wagoner communicated, along with measurable signs of progress (growth in foreign markets, successful new products, continued payroll reductions) prompted me to produce a skein of optimistic, if hedged, stories about the company. I should have taken to heart the analysis of Fortune's Carol Loomis, who saw bankruptcy looming for GM some three years ago. But after my most recent piece suggesting that a real turnaround was at hand, I finally ran out of patience. The company had been caught totally off guard by the spike in oil prices and possessed no backup plan when truck sales cratered and destroyed GM's business model for North America. Despite hopeful pronouncements, Delphi, its former parts division and now an independent company, took another turn for the worse and sank deeper into bankruptcy. If Washington wants to bail out GM, it's fine with me. A lot of short-term angst will be avoided, and taxpayer money has been spent for worse purposes. But you have to wonder whether the insular, self-absorbed culture that still dominates GM is up to the job of restructuring the company quickly enough to make it profitable and competitive again. GM has been on a downward path ever since I began covering it. What is going to make it different this time? As painful as bankruptcy may be, it would give GM the leverage it needs to redo its labor contracts and dealer franchise agreements, downsize the company, recruit new management, and position itself for an economic upturn in 2010 that would enable it to regain some fraction of its former glory. Once again, boys might even dream of becoming chairman of General Motors http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/21/magazines/fortune/taylor_generalmotors.fortune/i- ndex.htm?postversion=2008112508 |
|
|
Whether you think industry A, B, C, or D need bailout help, read the following. If the government continues to spend now, we are using any reserves we have, and will not have these options in the future. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/At-rate-government-need-a/story.aspx?guid=- %7B6F4AF0CA%2D9A05%2D4E38%2D9D82%2DD8E1D22739E2%7D&dist=SecMostRead We must be very careful how we spend $, to use it only in the most critical of spots. I always question how Congress spends $ on some of their projects and then says they don't have $ to fund healthcare, and help injured veterans and such. |
|
| I saw Nissan is pulling out of auto shows. These can't be that expensive for a company that size, so I'm wondering if they are getting into the same cash crisis as Detroit? | |
|
Replying to: nvbanker (Nov 24, 2008 11:34 am) Invite the workers back.....I wonder what the GM management contingency planning is thinking about this. Will all workers, former UAW and engineers, have to fill out job applications after a Chapter 11? Will managers also have to reapply? What are chances of hot-head union guys being rehired? Will Democrats have passed card-check law that would allow former UAW workers to quickly rejoin union? Will Congress require a new top managment team and new Board? Would favor some type of modest loan to help bridge GM through a pre-packaged Chapter 11 and with some kind of assurance from GM to drop brands, models, dealers. |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 24, 2008 10:15 pm) 1. gas stay at $1.75 a gallon, where it belongs. 2. The economy snaps back to normal, because underlying the fundamentals are good. 3. Continue to fight the union for concessions by threatening and executing plant closings. 4. Continue evolving product lines as they already have. I'm perfectly content with the new Malibu if I want to get 30 mpg hwy in a 170 HP car. The Obama plan is based on the fundamentals being bad before Nov. 4th, and that they are good after Nov. 4th. So far, we are on plan. Obama just said we need a 2% of GDP injection to snap back to life. Kinda like America is Ironman, but has a bacteria infection that a few pills will cure. The big question is, gas at $1.75 is a requirement of the economy snapping back. Will we allow the oil suppliers to destroy everything again, if it snaps back?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: berri (Nov 25, 2008 7:16 am) I think it's just as much a factor that they don't consider Detroit to be an important show any more. But I imagine it's also for cost-cutting. Automakers are focusing more on the LA show these days... |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Do You Favor A Government Loan To The Detroit 3?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
