GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,043 Posts
How about a choice?

Each automaker can choose one of the following two options:

1) Accept CAFE standards, and also get infinite access to low interest government loans

2) Disregard CAFE, but no loans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,071 Posts
Automakers can't blame Washington for the pickle they're in.

Washington didn't tell Detroit to focus solely on profitable trucks.
Washington didn't tell Detroit to ignore market trends.
Washington didn't tell Detroit to lag behind in quality and technology for so long.

Seems NOBODY but Detroit's big 3 are crying about CAFE. And there are several car companies that don't exactly specialize in high-MPG lineups!

But if it's warranted, I'd support loans to help 'em through a tough time. Maybe it'll teach 'em a lesson!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
Detroit got drunk......they got drunk and now they have a hangover.

It's their own ****ing fault for the mess they're in and I just wish someone would tell em to buck up and keep on working at it instead of whining to no end......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,979 Posts
How did this loan package get lumped into the CAFE regulations with no one reporting on it? The bailout package was in the works a long time ago. Heck, everything else is getting bailed out, my as well toss some billions the automakers way. Future generations can pay off the mess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,163 Posts
Automakers can't blame Washington for the pickle they're in.

Washington didn't tell Detroit to focus solely on profitable trucks.
Washington didn't tell Detroit to ignore market trends.
Washington didn't tell Detroit to lag behind in quality and technology for so long.

Seems NOBODY but Detroit's big 3 are crying about CAFE. And there are several car companies that don't exactly specialize in high-MPG lineups!

But if it's warranted, I'd support loans to help 'em through a tough time. Maybe it'll teach 'em a lesson!
Yup. That pretty much says it all.
Kinda common sense, if you ask me.

Now the part where GM failed to focus on building compact, fuel efficient cars profitably comes to bite them in the ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
586 Posts
GM fought making the drastic re-alignment of production capacity that was needed. They went after the segment that allowed them to be profitable without angering the UAW. Now that they are facing bankruptcy the Union will have to be more compliant either that or have the contracts tossed in bankruptcy court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
I blame Freep for sensationalizing these news. I thought the LA Times was literally telling the Big 3 to die and cease to exist like most Detroit haters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
515 Posts
Washington IS to blame for the mess Detroit is in. By opening our markets to EVERY foreign carmaker, without tariffs to eqaulize costs and level the playing field , the U.S. government has put our domestic car manufacturers at a terrible competitive disadvantage.
We impose ERISA, OSHA, Workers Comp, Disability, Social Security, Pension and Medical benefits on our employers. We impose strict environmental regulations. Then we permit Korean cars which are manufactured with dramatically lower costs than enumerated above to be sold here, yet impose no tariffs on them. How can Detroit compete with that ?
The Japanese and European governments subsidize their manufacturers, while the U.S. government forces ours to be less competitive. The foreign governments make it impossible via restrictions for our cars to be sold there.
Why doesn't the Governor of Michigan or the President of the UAW take out full page ads in the major newspapers across the country to urge Americans to buy American cars ? Can you imagine how strong the U.S. economy would be if every Toyota Camry on the road was instead a Chevy Malibu, every Honda Accord was a Ford Fusion and every Hyundai Sonata was a Dodge Avenger ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,684 Posts
Washington didn't tell Detroit to focus solely on profitable trucks.
Washington pushed fuel economy regulations that encouraged downsizing. They also pushed saftey regs that would make cars heavier and more expensive. At the same time, they offered tax breaks to consumers who opted for SUVS. It's not hard to see how the law may have played a role.

Washington didn't tell Detroit to ignore market trends.
Right, and we all know that until recently, the market was generally trending towards trucks and SUVS. The way i see it, they didn't ignore the trend.

Washington didn't tell Detroit to lag behind in quality and technology for so long.
Can't argue with that. It was just poor decision making.

Seems NOBODY but Detroit's big 3 are crying about CAFE. And there are several car companies that don't exactly specialize in high-MPG lineups!
This is where you are dead wrong. Toyota, the company that recently opened a brand new truck plant, is strongly lobbying against CAFE. You can look it up, i'm not wrong.

While i am never one two point fingers, I think we have to remember that it's not always as easy as black and white. There is a bit a a gray area that is often overlooked. [/My Two Pennies]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,391 Posts
If it comes down to that.. Washington is going to HAVE to help save Detroit. I mean come on can you imagine what would happen without the Big3 ?!? Our country would be in a world of hurt!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,684 Posts
Was Honda crying when US automakers were making a killing on SUVs and trucks?
No, instead they introduced the pilot, element, and ridgeline, and they made ther CR-V bigger. Now their half-assed attempts at light utilities, are paying off for them.

Nobody cries that honda sells too many cr-v's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,163 Posts
Was Honda crying when US automakers were making a killing on SUVs and trucks?
No.
Because they didn't believe in compromising their corporate values.
And while they saw some benefit in the big SUV/truck market, they were very conservative in their ventures in that market.

Ultimately, it proved to be a worthy strategy because they didn't compromise their values as a company.
That's how great brands survive and earn respect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,684 Posts
No.
Because they didn't believe in compromising their corporate values.
And while they saw some benefit in the big SUV/truck market, they were very conservative in their ventures in that market.

Ultimately, it proved to be a worthy strategy because they didn't compromise their values as a company.
That's how great brands survive and earn respect.
if honda kool-aid helps you sleep at night
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,071 Posts
Right, and we all know that until recently, the market was generally trending towards trucks and SUVS. The way i see it, they didn't ignore the trend.
Key word there... Generally. Trucks (including SUV's and unibody vehicles such as MPV's and Minivans) topped out at 50% of the market. Experts everywhere said that was the saturation point and, truck sales declined incrementally after around 2000, or stagnated. In addition, one would have to be a complete idiot to ignore the "trendiness" of trucks and SUVs and and only a complete idiot would ignore the fact that anything "trendy" doesn't have a long shelf life.

Make no mistake, I think GM was wise to milk every drop of the SUV market it could. And it did! GM all but owns the large SUV market. But to just absolutely ignore everything else....?

TuffG929 said:
This is where you are dead wrong. Toyota, the company that recently opened a brand new truck plant, is strongly lobbying against CAFE. You can look it up, i'm not wrong.

While i am never one two point fingers, I think we have to remember that it's not always as easy as black and white. There is a bit a a gray area that is often overlooked. [/My Two Pennies]
Sorry, lemme rephrase. Other companies aren't crying "but CAFE is simply going to destroy us" like the big 3 are. Believe me, I know that Toyota's looking to keep Tundra/Suckquoya sales as high as possible.

TuffG929, I don't believe in giving slack to anyone who lazes off and doesn't do their homework. And that's exactly what Detroit did. I'd have more sympathy if they were hamstrung my circumstances beyond their control. But think about it. GM et.al. insisted for over a decade that they focused on SUV's because of their huge profitablity. Where did those profits go then? They certainly didn't go back into product R&D. One model year's sales of Yukons alone profited enough to develop the entire Epsilon family...

What is destroying Detroit isn't lack of vision. Lack of market understanding. It's outright old-fashioned greed. They pocketed the profits from those SUV's and blew it all on hookers, blackjack and blow, instead of reinvesting it.

Sorry, but I simply can't pity them for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,829 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Washington has done nothing to understand or react to how other nations ESPECIALLY JAPAN are using currency and trade flow to under cut American industry. If you think this is just about the car industry you have gotten drunk on the Kool Aid.

Don't kid yourself about how it's just the product. The Japanese are just as stupid and inept as any other producer. Tundra and Titan are proof of that. But their government sees that their role is to keep as many of their "subjects" employed as possible. We elect idiots that tell us how "they" will do it. They have a government that figured out that the "evil" corporations can do it far better.

What everybody is missing is that the so called bailouts aren't. They are an intervention to equalize the interest payments. And guess what, in the long run it's almost the same thing that Japan did. Except they have a trade surplus and a boatload of our national debt that's paying for their subsidy programs.

And don't bother with the nonsense about the global economy. It doesn't exist. Is there a global currency? A global interest rate? Nope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,684 Posts
Key word there... Generally. Trucks (including SUV's and unibody vehicles such as MPV's and Minivans) topped out at 50% of the market. Experts everywhere said that was the saturation point and, truck sales declined incrementally after around 2000, or stagnated.
Right, and GM responded with a lineup of small and midsize SUVs. Back in 2000 nobody could predict the abrupt market shift that we saw in the last 3-4 years. Sure, the market was trending in that direction but the change was expected to be more gradual. This is evidenced by the fact that within that timeframe, everyone under the sun has come out with a new SUV specifically for sale in the American market. (Kia Borrego, Audi Q7, Toyota Sequoia, etc.)

In addition, one would have to be a complete idiot to ignore the "trendiness" of trucks and SUVs and and only a complete idiot would ignore the fact that anything "trendy" doesn't have a long shelf life.
So I guess they shouldn't bother with Hybrids because they are very trendy right now.

TuffG929, I don't believe in giving slack to anyone who lazes off and doesn't do their homework. And that's exactly what Detroit did. I'd have more sympathy if they were hamstrung my circumstances beyond their control. But think about it. GM et.al. insisted for over a decade that they focused on SUV's because of their huge profitablity. Where did those profits go then? They certainly go back into product R&D. One model year's sales of Yukons alone profited enough to develop the entire Epsilon family...
I'm not looking for sympathy. But, there are facts that will stand GM's defense. There is proof that GM did a lot to test the waters at the shallower end of the market. In fact, they started two brands. In 1989 GM unveiled the GEO nameplate. The brand featured a lineup of small cars that were built by the joint-venture with Suzuki and Toyota. The cars had great fuel economy, were inexpensive, and had the benefit of being distributed through the nation's largest dealer network. The fact that the brand no longer exists is proof that it failed. To hedge their bets, GM began selling Saturns in 1991. Saturn also sold small cars with great fuel economy. But, they also had innovative design and clever marketing. Saturn didn't exactly fail, but their sales peaked in 1994. But, if Saturn and GEO weren't enough, in 2001 GM purchased the assets of the failed Daewoo Corporation. GM would later leverage their lineup of small cars around the world. These all represent hefty investments on GM's part and I didn't even bother to bring up the eV-1.

What is destroying Detroit isn't lack of vision. Lack of market understanding. It's outright old-fashioned greed. They pocketed the profits from those SUV's and blew it all on hookers, blackjack and blow, instead of reinvesting it.
All of that being said, I think its best we agree to disagree. I just will not begin to believe that it’s as simple as you make it out to be. I concede that GM alone has made its fair amount of mistakes and miscalculations. But I also say that there is more to it than that.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top