General Motors

[Bathead]

Again, the Japanese auto industry looks to surpass America's. Are we really trying?

 

[Marx]

Nissan's Leaf Claims 367 MPG - Is It Better Than The Chevy Volt?

$25K price tag

Holy ****!

 

[BatMatt]

Kel, that image you posted a few days back was not the new Prius final design, this is:

I've decided my next car will be either a used Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid. The Prius has more passenger room, better gas mileage, and a smaller carbon footprint, but the Civic has better styling inside and out. I've also driven the Civic Hybrid before, and it was a blast

 

[Marx]

GM KILLS SATURN AFTER PENSKE DEAL FAILS
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/news/companies/penske_saturn/index.htm?postversion=2009093017

 

[Kelly]

Kel, that image you posted a few days back was not the new Prius final design, this is:

I've decided my next car will be either a used Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid. The Prius has more passenger room, better gas mileage, and a smaller carbon footprint, but the Civic has better styling inside and out. I've also driven the Civic Hybrid before, and it was a blast

I didn't say it was the final design, I just posted a pic of a Prius.

Good luck finding a used Hybrid of any kind.

Before you look at Hybrid's be sure you know the differences......many who went with the Honda Hybrid have not been as happy as those that went with Toyota or Ford.....
Not only can Toyota hybrids function solely on electric power at low speeds, Honda's are not at this point....Toyota hybrids are a more direct step towards fuel cell vehicles than are Honda hybrids.

Fuel Cell developers are calling on Toyota to develop plug-in hybrids because they would be the perfect platform for a smaller and cheaper fuel cell stack, at this point Honda is behind in that technology....
Honda hybrid cars, at this point in time, are more of an interim technology to Honda fuel cell cars, rather than a vehicle with a power train that can evolve into fuel cell vehicles, for Honda. That right there tells you that Honda is behind Toyota in this technology....and they still have not worked out all of the bugs in their hybrids, hence the dissatisfaction of some customers.

That right there is Toyota's extremely important advantage.

Ford's technology is the same as Toyota's....that is why they are doing better than any of the big three in this area...

 

[chaseter]

I just saw on the news that cars sales plummeted:

New car sales slump after 'cash for clunkers' ends

September auto sales drop 23% from a year earlier. GM's plunge 45% and Chrysler's fall 43%; Honda and Toyota also report double-digit slides. Kia and Hyundai have double-digit increases.

A Chrysler dealership in Los Angeles. Chrysler Group reported a 42.1% decline in September sales. (Mark Ralston / AFP/Getty Images / October 1)

New-car sales fell in September as the predicted post-"cash for clunkers" slump dragged the U.S. market down to its lowest sales rate in seven months.

Without government cash on the table, worried consumers shunned dealership lots, buying just 745,997 cars and light trucks, a 23% slide from a year earlier, when 964,873 vehicles were sold.

Calculated on an annualized basis, September sales ran at just a 9.22-million-unit clip, according to Autodata Corp. That's the lowest level since February, when the annualized rate was 9.12 million, a sign that consumers remain cautious about spending in the midst of a weak job market.

Industry experts say sales of new vehicles should total at least 12 million units a year in order to replace vehicles that are scrapped or no longer used. In recent years, annual sales have been much higher than that, staying above 16 million units for most of this decade.

"Consumer spending and sentiment are still weak," said Mike DiGiovanni, chief sales analyst at General Motors Co., which saw its September sales fall 44.8% compared with a year earlier. He attributed a portion of the decline to the "clunkers hangover," but also pointed at economic indicators. "We're clearly not going to be completely out of the woods for a while."

Nearly every major automaker reported declines for the month. Chrysler Group reported a 42.1% decline, Toyota Motor Corp.'s sales fell 12.6%, Honda Motor Co.'s were down 20.1% and Nissan deliveries were off 7%.

The only large automakers to report year-over-year increases were Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Motors Corp., with increases of 27.2% and 24.4%, respectively, on a combined total of just over 53,000 units purchased.

The dismal tallies compare with an overall industry sales increase of 1% in August, when the government's vehicle sales stimulus program offered vouchers of as much as $4,500 to trade in old cars for new ones. Roughly 700,000 new cars were sold as a result of the program, which ended Aug. 24.

"Cash for clunkers is behind us. Maybe we'll never have to mention it again," said George Pipas, chief sales analyst at Ford Motor Co., which saw its sales slide 5.8%. Although he believed that the termination of the government incentive hurt sales in September, he didn't expect much of a future effect. "No excuses," Pipas said.

For its part, GM said it had calculated that a total of 200,000 sales that would have occurred later were pulled into the clunkers sales period. Of those, it said, 70,000 would otherwise have been registered in September.

Yet because August was so strong, with sales above 1 million units for the first time in a year, the third quarter has turned out to be the best in this overall dismal year for auto sales.

Inventories, overloaded in the spring, are now stretched razor-thin because automakers first cut production and then faced unexpectedly high sales thanks to the clunkers program.

Ford said its inventory dropped by 40,000 units during the third quarter, and GM said its stock of cars and trucks on dealership lots was down 41% at the end of September compared with a year earlier.

Toyota said that it had only enough inventory of its hybrid Prius to last 7.7 days at current selling rates, far below its preferred level of 45 to 50 days.

Dave Greiner, owner of a Pontiac Buick GMC dealership in Victorville, said his sales were off about 15% for the month, in part because he couldn't get more popular models on his lot.

"I have people on wait lists for the new Buick LaCrosse and GMC Terrain, but I can't get the things," Greiner said.

GM said it had boosted production and hoped to get vehicles to dealers in coming weeks.

Some analysts took heart in other positive signs hidden in all the negative data.

Among them was the continuing strength of the two Korean automakers, Hyundai and Kia. Their combined market share reached 7.1%, up from 4.4% a year earlier, and five of the 10 current Hyundai vehicles posted higher sales this September than a year earlier.

Another eye-catcher was Ford's F-series pickup sales, which rose 3.5% for the month to 33,877 trucks sold, a second straight monthly increase for the vehicles.

Ford said mainly small businesses and individuals, rather than large companies, purchased the pickups, an important indicator of confidence in the construction and home-building markets. Yet sales of GM's top pickup, the Silverado, declined 62%, and deliveries of Toyota's Tundra fell 18%.

Executives at most automakers expressed amazement -- and exhaustion -- at the unpredictable nature of the market.

"I've never seen a roller-coaster quarter like this," said Ken Czubay, head of marketing, sales and service at Ford. "This was an extremely volatile period."

Executives at automakers were lukewarm in their expectations for the fourth quarter. They expect sales to come in above levels seen in the first half of the year, but continued high unemployment and consumer reluctance are likely to depress sales.

"We believe the remainder of 2009 will continue to be a challenge for the U.S. automotive market," said Peter Fong, Chrysler's top sales executive. "Credit markets have thawed slightly but still remain tight, and consumer confidence, as we saw in September, is tenuous."

Thanks CARS!

 

[dnno1]

Take note that the CARS program ended in August. Sales may have dropped in September, but the industry still had a good third quarter. The article also says that the inventories of the automakers are stretched thin so they will need to make more cars, and there are waiting lists of people wanting them. Let's see what happens the remainder of the year.

 

[Kelly]

Yeah, its pretty sad when an increase of 5% over last year is a grand positive, and a negative for the other 2 big automakers is still looked upon as a positive as well....because its not as big of a negative as it could have been.....


*shakes head* just doesn't compute....

 

[chaseter]

He should have said: "Note the use of the word 'good' is relative."

 

[Kelly]

lol....true.....I guess a 15% loss is better than a 25% loss.....

 

[Marx]

GM CEO RESIGNS
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/12/gm_ceo_henderson_resigns.php?ref=fpa

 

[Paradoxium]

I've been reading up on all the "forced" political moves that came at the expense of financial ones. I was expecting both CEOs to inevitably resign. I expect no one qualified to take the job, there are too much political gridlocks to get things done.

 

[BlackLantern]

I've seen that fossil Whitacres commercials...talking about restoring faith in GM and the American auto industry....not to be an ass, but he won't last 2 years

 

[Kelly]

Yep, its wonderful to own 61% of a dieing company.....great business.

 

[Paradoxium]

Yep, its wonderful to own 61% of a dieing company.....great business.

You probably won't want to see this Kel. 61 is the magical number!!!

Audit: Taxpayers lose $61B on AIG, auto bailouts

 

[BlackLantern]

I just want to see how dnno1 reacts when (not if) GM goes bankrupt...apparently he thinks it's a violation of the US Constitution if that were to happen

 

[dnno1]

I just want to see how dnno1 reacts when (not if) GM goes bankrupt...apparently he thinks it's a violation of the US Constitution if that were to happen

I think you mean fails and goes out of business. They have already filed for bankruptcy just to protect themselves from their creditors. Furthermore I don't think that a auto company going out of business violates the Constitution and I never said anything like that. What I did say is that this country needs an automobile industry and that the government is within it's constitutional powers to bail them out if it would serve to promote the general welfare. If you can't get anything that I say right, you are better off not saying anything at all.

 

[Kelly]

The country needs automobile companies that keep up with the times, effectively and efficiently run their companies....

Not companies that cater to unions, that only care for how much they can get for their members, not quality product...that can compete with other car companies....pay upper level people ridiculous amounts of money.

 

[BlackLantern]

I think you mean fails and goes out of business. They have already filed for bankruptcy just to protect themselves from their creditors. Furthermore I don't think that a auto company going out of business violates the Constitution and I never said anything like that. What I did say is that this country needs an automobile industry and that the government is within it's constitutional powers to bail them out if it would serve to promote the general welfare. If you can't get anything that I say right, you are better off not saying anything at all.

In your opinion, this country needs an automobile industry...there was a United States of America before the automobile was invented

like Kel said, auto companies that keep up with the times and don't outright refuse to look into hybrid or fuel cell designs until they absolutely have to.....and that's what GM did....

Ford, to their credit, started looking at hybrid and more fuel efficient vehicles years ago because they saw how the auto industry was changing

 

[dnno1]

In your opinion, this country needs an automobile industry...there was a United States of America before the automobile was invented

like Kel said, auto companies that keep up with the times and don't outright refuse to look into hybrid or fuel cell designs until they absolutely have to.....and that's what GM did....

Ford, to their credit, started looking at hybrid and more fuel efficient vehicles years ago because they saw how the auto industry was changing

That's not an opinion, that is a fact. We need an automobile industry because not only do they employ more Americans than any other, but they also produce goods and technology that in turn produces positive wealth for our economy. Letting it go by the wayside is not smart at all and only lets other nations (who could some day be our enemy) get the advantage. I can not say that GM and Chrysler did not look at hybrid or fuel cell designs, because they did and are marketing these products now. The truth of the matter is that you can't make a hybrid truck that gets the type of fuel economy that consumers want.

 

[Handsome Rob]

That's not an opinion, that is a fact. We need an automobile industry because not only do they employ more Americans than any other, but they also produce goods and technology that in turn produces positive wealth for our economy. Letting it go by the wayside is not smart at all and only lets other nations (who could some day be our enemy) get the advantage. I can not say that GM and Chrysler did not look at hybrid or fuel cell designs, because they did and are marketing these products now. The truth of the matter is that you can't make a hybrid truck that gets the type of fuel economy that consumers want.

So even if we were to develop an alternative means of transportation (say, jetpacks?) from which would spring up an entire new industry, we should still prop up the (non-Ford) failing automobile industry because we need it?

I'm sorry, but the only businesses we need are good, healthy businesses. And crappy ones, regardless of the industry in which they operate, should be allowed to go down the toilet . . . so that other, better-operated businesses can take their places.

You can spray as much Febreze on a turd as you want, but it's still going to smell like you-know-what on the inside. As long as you are propping up failure, you are diverting monies that could be used to create success.

 

[dnno1]

So even if we were to develop an alternative means of transportation (say, jetpacks?) from which would spring up an entire new industry, we should still prop up the (non-Ford) failing automobile industry because we need it?

I'm sorry, but the only businesses we need are good, healthy businesses. And crappy ones, regardless of the industry in which they operate, should be allowed to go down the toilet . . . so that other, better-operated businesses can take their places.

You can spray as much Febreze on a turd as you want, but it's still going to smell like you-know-what on the inside. As long as you are propping up failure, you are diverting monies that could be used to create success.

No, not necessarily. Once again it all depends on if it would promote the general welfare. But just to let you know, this has happened before with the rail road industry and is why we have Amtrak. If you haven't noticed, the success and failure of a lot of major institutions is driven by the government. They will often times (virtually) subsidize a company in order to make it a competitor in a particular industry. The aerospace industry is a perfect example of that. Furthermore, your allegory about Febreze and turd is far from reality, since we are talking about entities that are more than capable of engineering, designing, and building high quality and innovative products. Their only limitation (as is the case with anyone else) is capital -- something, which the government can supply.

 

[Paradoxium]

Chrysler won’t repay $3.7 billion TARP loan

Hey dnno1, how you like 'em apples?

 

[BlackLantern]

it reads to me as if the government wants an explanation as to why Chrysler can't pay back the TARP money and Chrysler isn't offering one

 

[Paradoxium]

On another note, I think the mods should rename this thread the "DISCUSSION: Auto Industry Failout" I mean "bailout"