Government May Nationalize the Auto Industry

[MasterBates]

((I am hoping they will release the alleged 500 SS 396 engines that GM had in deep storage)) .

There's not alleged they are real and I'd guess well more than 500.. When GM Shut down Cherolet-East Assembly and Buick City in the late 90s, I helped move a bunch of that stuff. Most of them went to a warehouse in the Pontiac area, and others are in preservation in the ME labs at GMI.

There was a lot of neat shit we took out of those R&D pilot plants before they were torn down.

 

[knobbzy]

((I am hoping they will release the alleged 500 SS 396 engines that GM had in deep storage)) They would probably scoop up some of the better dealerships, not all. I have the sinking feeling that 2 of the largest dealers in my area are going belly up, soon if not soonest, or may have already.

I have a hemi powered SRT8 Jeep and a LS7 powered Z06, looks like the end of the big hp era (again). Nothing like big cube motors with gobs of torque! Heck, my Z could even manage 30mpg when it was stock!

I have always felt that GM had some pretty good and innovative engineering, and the Corvette platform was something that really evolved pretty well. It is unfortunate that they just had so many models and brands, it really meant that they were competing against each other. Not to mention that their service over the years has been in a steady decline. As Chief stated, I'd rather not bring my cars in for warranty work because they are usually returned with the problem unfixed and with scratches. It's too bad, because if GM wanted to find another revenue stream they really should consider figuring out something with service.

JMHO.

 

[MasterBates]

When you say GM has too many models and brands, keep in mind that GM started as just Buick back in 1903ish, (earlier if you count Billy Durant's earlier carriage companies) and got Chevy, Pontiac, Olds etc by buying out and merging with smaller car companies, and letting them each have their niche market.

It used to be like this:
Chevy = Working Man's car (save a couple performance models)
Olds = Little bit of a step up, or an older gentlemans' car
Buick = Family Man with money's car
Pontiac = Performance dabbling into Luxury, but performance over luxury. Think Audi.
Caddilac = Luxury. And the power to move it.

They kind of flattened the "strata" in the post WWII era and then the GM divisions started fighting each other for market share.

Ford used to be the same way, but with 3 main brands

Ford ~= Chevy and Olds
Mercury ~= Buick & Pontiac
Lincoln = Caddilac

 

[Spekkio]

You know for all the crap GM gets, they actually build pretty good products.

Quoting rough numbers from a business magazine:

Roughly 70% of Ford vehicles (all of them, not just "Ford") got a thumbs up from Consumer Reports in '08; contrast this with 17% for GM and less than 10% (6?) for Chrysler.

Ford was still 12 out of 14, but it's far ahead of GM and Chrysler.

It is unfortunate that they just had so many models and brands, it really meant that they were competing against each other.

The article I read also addressed this. Ford had a CEO take over a little over two years ago who is working toward fixing this issue, but it didn't detail if GM had the same idea.

 

[Random8145]

So what's this with Obama firing GM's CEO, I thought the President isn't supposed to have this power...? The President is not supposed to be able to fire a CEO of a private company, especially without any oversight like this. What does this mean for other companies? If any company has received bailout money, can the government fire that CEO? What CEO will be put in for replacement and what political purposes will they serve aside from making a profit for the shareholders? This seems to have dangerous implications for the free-market.

 

[Bevo16]

Obama didn't fire him. The CEO "stepped down at the President's request". In other words, no more bailout money unless he quit. So, the CEO gets to float down in his golden parachute, it looks like the company is playing ball, more taxpayer money goes to GM, and they give more control to the federal government.

 

[SkywardET]

So what's this with Obama firing GM's CEO, I thought the President isn't supposed to have this power...? The President is not supposed to be able to fire a CEO of a private company, especially without any oversight like this. What does this mean for other companies? If any company has received bailout money, can the government fire that CEO? What CEO will be put in for replacement and what political purposes will they serve aside from making a profit for the shareholders? This seems to have dangerous implications for the free-market.

So strange that such a small side-show can have tangible effects on the average American. Meanwhile, in the real world, the banks have received several trillions from Uncle Sam and they get angry words instead.