View Full Version : GM May be Sold to Swedish Firm
CarlosDJackal
04-01-09, 16:27
I just heard that General Motors may be bought out by a Swedish firm who plans on marketing more affordable cars.
Here is a picture of the first prototype: GM-Ikea car (http://karhoe.net/images/stories/2009/ikeadiycar2.jpg)
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw
04-01-09, 21:08
It can be put together with an allen wrench and a 10mm wrench. :D
variablebinary
04-02-09, 14:00
GM in Euro hands is probably a good thing.
American Automotive managers are idiots, and their designs blow.
Maybe a new Euro perspective can help bring an end to the bloated transportation for fatties, and create better driving, smaller, more nimble world cars.
I just heard that General Motors may be bought out by a Swedish firm who plans on marketing more affordable cars.
Here is a picture of the first prototype: GM-Ikea car (http://karhoe.net/images/stories/2009/ikeadiycar2.jpg)
Damn, I just know I'd have parts left over.
Probably important parts.
Not good.
GM in Euro hands is probably a good thing.
American Automotive managers are idiots, and their designs blow.
Maybe a new Euro perspective can help bring an end to the bloated transportation for fatties, and create better driving, smaller, more nimble world cars.
GMs current European marks aren't much better. Besides the quirky Saab, which is an acquisition, they have Opel/Vauxhall (long time parts of GM). As ugly in general as the us GM cars though better driving for sure.
variablebinary
04-03-09, 03:28
GMs current European marks aren't much better. Besides the quirky Saab, which is an acquisition, they have Opel/Vauxhall (long time parts of GM). As ugly in general as the us GM cars though better driving for sure.
I think the Insignia is a smokin design. Better than anything GM USA is putting out by far. Mostly though I meant the Euro standards for high quality interiors, equipment and sharp handling.
The Euros get this while we get saddled with the horrid Malibu.
http://puregreencars.com/files/Opel-Insignia_n.jpg
I think the Insignia is a smokin design. Better than anything GM USA is putting out by far. Mostly though I meant the Euro standards for high quality interiors, equipment and sharp handling.
The Euros get this while we get saddled with the horrid Malibu.
http://puregreencars.com/files/Opel-Insignia_n.jpg
Looks like a Nissan Z to me. It is better than the US GM but does not do much for me personally. Sorry
;)
Chad
The Euros get this while we get saddled with the horrid Malibu.
http://puregreencars.com/files/Opel-Insignia_n.jpg
Yeah, cause the Malibu sucks SO bad it won International Car Show's "Car of the Year, 2008".
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/01/malibu_wins_car_1.html
GM has some warts for sure, most of it terrible marketing, incompetent management and horrid labor issues, but its quality and designs aren't the biggest warts.
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw
04-03-09, 12:52
but its quality and designs aren't the biggest warts.
keep telling yourself that.
keep telling yourself that.
I will.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/03/19/buick-and-jaguar-top-lexus-in-quality/
http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2007/12/2009%20Corvette%20ZR1%20Official.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC-PQca6FJU
variablebinary
04-03-09, 13:27
I will.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/03/19/buick-and-jaguar-top-lexus-in-quality/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC-PQca6FJU
Buick LOL
I havent heard someone say "I want a Buick" in like 20 years. That brand is toxic, and yeah their cars suck.
I had a GM/Pontiac 4 years ago. I learned my lesson. It was a big pile of crap on wheels. Never again.
Buick LOL
I havent heard someone say "I want a Buick" in like 20 years. That brand is toxic, and yeah their cars suck
Argumentum ad populum
The article isn't posted to see which brand is popular, but rather as a example of GM's struggle to improve its quality control. I follow GM as a brand very closely, and yes, they have problems, but most of the bashing that goes on is from people that haven't driven, much less owned a GM product. Much like XCR bashers.
variablebinary
04-03-09, 13:39
Argumentum ad populum
The article isn't posted to see which brand is popular, but rather as a example of GM's struggle to improve its quality control. I follow GM as a brand very closely, and yes, they have problems, but most of the bashing that goes on is from people that haven't driven, much less owned a GM product. Much like XCR bashers.
I have driven and owned a GM. Lease return. Low miles. It was crap. It was in the shop getting repaired literally every month.
I dumped it at a loss after owning it for 9 months.
The Corvette is one speciality car out of a whole lineup. The exception that proves the rule I guess.
I have driven many GM cars as rentals, from friends, etc. They all suck IMNSHO. And most of them are ugly as sin too. Most US cars are ugly as sin but GM is the crown winner. Ford and Chrysler have some interesting offerings. But few cars from the big 3 inspire. They seem so "pedestrian."
A lot of these "quality surveys" also deal with "initial quality."
My main concern is not initial quality while it's all under warranty - but how reliable will it be with 150,000+ miles on it?
My 2001 Dodge Intrepid ES with the 3.2L engine was my family's favorite car EVER. Comfortable, good performance, excellent fuel economy (especially on the highway, 30+ mpg all the time) and very roomy.
Unfortunately, it was a POS that started falling apart at 77,000 miles. First and foremost, it needed a new transmission. Dodge couldn't make a durable 4 speed auto transmission?
I got it working best I could and traded it back to the dealer that sold it to me for a new CR-V. The Dodge lost 85% of it's value in three years.
All of the American companies have come a long way as far as quality is concerned. They used to be junk. They are not anymore and haven't been for a while. Of course there are exceptions. I see Toyotas and Nissans on tow trucks too. The perception that Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans are bullet proof is incorrect. They are great cars, but they are not perfect like they are made out to be.
I work around all different brands of cars-from Lexus, Cadillac, Volvo, Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, GMC, Infiniti, Honda, Nissan and more. I would buy a Cadillac CTS-V in a heartbeat if I could. IMHO, they are a world class car, along with Corvettes.
Ther are very few Euro cars I would consider.
http://www.cadillac.com/09ctsv/
Check out this American made, 100 MPG BEAUTY:
http://karma.fiskerautomotive.com/
Video of the Fisker:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=136046
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw
04-04-09, 23:33
Argumentum ad populum
The article isn't posted to see which brand is popular, but rather as a example of GM's struggle to improve its quality control. I follow GM as a brand very closely, and yes, they have problems, but most of the bashing that goes on is from people that haven't driven, much less owned a GM product. Much like XCR bashers.
I have owned 1 Pontiac, 2 Chevy, and even a Geo... The Geo was the best of the bunch. When I was first getting into cars I was a die hard Chevy guy. Built several SBC's. I had a Job moving cars for over a year and in that time I spent a lot of time in brand new cars. Buicks, Chevys, Chrysler products, Nissans, Hondas (including Acuras), Toyotas (Including Lexus and Scions), Mercedes, BMW... A ton of cars and a ton of miles in each... I speak from experience. Modern GM cars are Crap compared to pretty much everything else on the market, including Chrysler. Ford has quite a few decent cars, and almost everything "foreign" is lightyears beyond GM products.
GM in Euro hands is probably a good thing.
American Automotive managers are idiots, and their designs blow.
Maybe a new Euro perspective can help bring an end to the bloated transportation for fatties, and create better driving, smaller, more nimble world cars.
I find these comments odd.
The big 3 certainly made some seriously bad business decisions but there designs were exactly what the American customer was buying. Little/cheap cars do not sell in the U.S. when gas is under $4 a gallon, that is reality. They only sell in Europe becuase there governments force them to buy them, tax the crap out of gas, etc. Financially most European automakers are in the same boat as GM and Chrysler. Is that becuase they designs are so much better? :)
To be more specific, American consumers won't buy small American cars. But they will buy small Japanese or European cars. Given the numbers of Honda Civics, Toyota Corollas, VW Jettas and other small cars I've seen on the road before and after the oil spike, it would appear that the demand is there, just not for American product.
Now, I fully agree that lots of people did want and buy large SUV's. American companies sold lots of them because that is one of the few segments where they were competitive.
Unfortunately, they went too far into that segment and ceded the rest to the imports. It made sense at the time and maximized profits in the good years, but it was a major strategic error in failing to plan for a rise in oil prices, or an increase in CAFE requirements.
Why is Ford doing "OK" then?
IMO: The problem lies in the huge bonuses for management/executives. This is what drives most companies executive decisions now days. I see it all the time at my work. Why would "I" spend the money to build new/more efficient plants, radically change our product, or even worry about the future of the company when those expenditures would hurt my bonus right now? Companies are driven from quarter to quarter or from one bonus evaluation period to the next. Obviously this most likely isn't the best way to run a business in the long term. You will get away with it when times are good, but since you have done little or anything for the future the company very well might be in the trouble down the road. In there mindset why worry since I will already be set for life or have a golden parachute waiting for me.
thopkins22
04-05-09, 10:45
Why is Ford doing "OK" then?
IMO: The problem lies in the huge bonuses for management/executives. This is what drives most companies executive decisions now days. I see it all the time at my work. Why would "I" spend the money to build new/more efficient plants, radically change our product, or even worry about the future of the company when those expenditures would hurt my bonus right now? Companies are driven from quarter to quarter or from one bonus evaluation period to the next. Obviously this most likely isn't the best way to run a business in the long term. You will get away with it when times are good, but since you have done little or anything for the future the company very well might be in the trouble down the road. In there mindset why worry since I will already be set for life or have a golden parachute waiting for me.
I can't express how much I disagree. Should their shareholders continue to elect a board of directors that allows these huge bonuses for people that ran the company into the ground? Of course not. But look no further than Exxon, the most profitable company in the world. Exxon's executives get HUGE bonuses, because they've made excellent business decisions. The shareholders should be made to bite the bullet, because they bought into a poorly run company, when there were companies being run profitably. If that happened, incompetence would no longer be tolerated.
The problem with the American auto industry, besides offering inferior products at a premium price, besides allowing their business decisions to be made by unions to the point that they make little or no profit on each car made and so forth, is that they have come to rely so heavily on a populace so inundated with cheap credit that they have to sell us all a new car every year or two. They need to ALL go bankrupt, be bought by competent entities, restructured(and probably relocated,) and learn to export product like the rest of the world has done for us.
If that happened I firmly believe that the American auto industry would be profitable and back on it's feet in better condition than it has been in the past twenty years in a very short time frame.
Ford's doing OK because Alan Mulally, who was recruited from Boeing, had the foresight to sell every capital asset that wasn't already hocked and lease them back. This generated a LOT of cash which is helping them weather the financial crisis.
Alan also changed many long standing business practices. With the old UAW jobs bank, you had to pay the workers whether they worked or not. So the plants would typically keep running even if the product wasn't selling so they didn't "waste" money on idle labor. This is a vestige of the old labor-cost-accounting systems that place too much weight on labor and fail to see the big picture. Years ago, labor was the biggest cost, but now it's maybe 10% of the product cost, if that. The only way to sell the cars that were being built for no reason was to pile on the rebates and incentives. Alan changed this by applying aircraft manufacturing principles - build to order and when orders are filled shut down and lay everyone off.
I know this stuff because I worked for FoMoCo for 7 years in design and manufacturing, and have spent almost 6 years at a Tier 1 supplier to Ford.
Big bonuses are a problem, but it's not nearly as much of a problem as it is in the financial industry. The bigger problem is the group think that goes on in Detroit. When I started at Ford I couldn't believe how many young engineers around me grew up in the Detroit area, went to school in Michigan, and then got a job at one of the Big-3. They had grown up being taught to hate import cars and dismissed the clear advantages imports had over American cars. They still had the imports=junk mindset. But I can see how that happens - the roads in Detroit or so bad they will destroy cars that don't have heavy duty (read - overweight) chassis parts. That's why American cars are usually too heavy and get mediocre gas mileage. They are built "tough" to survive Detroit roads. Japanese cars tend to be lighter and get better fuel economy, but they are less able to absorb punishment from bad roads.
Rick Waggoner was a lifer at GM. He was not just looking at the short term. Bill Ford who was CEO at Ford before Mulally was also a long term guy because his name is on the door. The problem is that these guys only knew one thing - how the system works (or doesn't work) at their company. They had no outside experience, never worked anywhere else, and were products of their environment. They simply cannot look at cars the way the average consumer in the rest of the country does.
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw
04-05-09, 14:11
Why is Ford doing "OK" then?
IMO: The problem lies in the huge bonuses for management/executives. This is what drives most companies executive decisions now days. I see it all the time at my work. Why would "I" spend the money to build new/more efficient plants, radically change our product, or even worry about the future of the company when those expenditures would hurt my bonus right now? Companies are driven from quarter to quarter or from one bonus evaluation period to the next. Obviously this most likely isn't the best way to run a business in the long term. You will get away with it when times are good, but since you have done little or anything for the future the company very well might be in the trouble down the road. In there mindset why worry since I will already be set for life or have a golden parachute waiting for me.
If the .gov would just keep their damn nose out of it and let the companies that are going to fail actually fail, then it wouldn't be a problem. Pretty much every major corp in the world (at least the western world) has the same bonus structure. Why are they not in dire straights?? It is because the Execs know that if they want to keep getting the bonuses long term they will make the hard decisions and take the smaller bonuses short term.
Its the story of the Sheep. A rancher can shear a sheep for its entire life and make a little bit of money every year or he can skin it once and make a lot in one year... then what the hell does he do the next? I would be willing to bet that the mindset of the execs at major corps that are weathering this storm is that of the "shearing rancher" while the mindset of the failing corps is that of the "skinner."
While I agree the government shouldn't be bailing out companies that deserve to fail, you have to consider the cost of government meddling that helped create the problem.
The government enacted the CAFE regulations that helped make the small car business unprofitable for the Big-3. The government enacted safety regulations that drove up cost and weight, which has a negative effect on fuel economy. The government enacted the labor legislation that allowed the UAW to take over all three companies. The government enacted the 25% tariff on import pickup trucks that made it highly profitable for US makers to focus on light trucks instead of cars. The government kept interest rates too low for too long, fueling the bubble. The government of the state of Michigan has basically sold itself out to the labor unions, and enacted ever more taxes to punish businesses and productive workers for the benefit non-workers.
I could go on, but you get the idea. The auto industry is saddled with so many government mandated or enabled problems that it's hard to hold just the companies responsible. Government has had a big hand in killing the golden goose.
Now, executive compensation HAS gotten way out of hand. It used to be that CEO's were career company men with decades of experience. They were focused on long term viability and tended to shy away from the public light. If they got thrown out, it wasn't like another company was going to hire them into the CEO role so they had to make it work.
In the past couple decades we've seen the rise of the "rock star" CEO that jumps from company to company, often without enough experience to understand the industry they are currently working in. They command high salaries, bonuses, and stock options to take the job, and usually write generous golden parachutes into the pay packages. If they wreck one company, they just find another that is dumb enough to hire them and move on.
The Boards of Directors simply are not doing their jobs. They seem to think they have to pay top dollar for top talent, but more often than not the top talent isn't really as talented as they would have you believe. It doesn't help that the boards are stocked with cronies who are CEO's or officers of other companies and they all go around scratching each others' backs to award ever increasing compensation packages.
It's no different than what free agency has done to professional sports - excessive labor costs that often fails to meet up to the hype.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.