SkyscraperCity Forum banner

The GM/Ford/Chrysler Discussion Thread

153K views 750 replies 53 participants last post by  hudkina 
#1 ·
Jesus, how many people can GM lay off in Flint? It seems like they've laid off half the damn city...

GM to lay off 3,550 at 4 pickup truck and SUV factories
By TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

DETROIT - The dwindling U.S. auto market and an accelerating shift from trucks to cars has brought grim layoff news to four General Motors Corp. factories.

The company announced Monday that it plans to cut one shift each at pickup truck and large sport utility vehicle plants in Flint and Pontiac, Mich.; Janesville, Wis.; and Oshawa, Ontario, resulting in about 3,550 layoffs.

The world's largest automaker by sales said the cuts, to take effect this summer, were brought on by weak demand due to high gasoline prices and an economic downturn.

GM said it will make about 88,000 fewer pickups and 50,000 fewer big SUVs this calendar year because of the cuts. The layoffs represent just over 4 percent of GM's hourly manufacturing work force of about 80,000 in North America.

The announcement came after stock markets closed. GM shares rose 56 cents, or 2.6 percent, to $21.94 Monday, then lost 3 cents in after-hours trading.

"With rising fuel prices, a softening economy and a downward trend on current and future market demand for full-size trucks, a significant adjustment was needed to align our production with market realities," GM North America President Troy Clarke said in a statement.

For about the past three years, the U.S. auto market has been shifting from pickup trucks and SUVs to cars and crossover vehicles, but the trend picked up in recent months due to gas prices that have reached $3.60 per gallon, on average.

GM expects the layoffs to begin July 14 at the Flint, Janesville and Pontiac plants, and Sept. 8 at Oshawa. Most of the factories had already seen layoffs and production cuts due to a parts shortage from a two-month strike at American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings Inc.

GM spokesman Tony Sapienza said the company will eliminate shifts with 750 workers each at Flint and Janesville, 1,150 workers in Pontiac, and 900 workers in Oshawa. Final numbers must be worked out with unions, he said.

Laid-off workers will get unemployment benefits and supplemental pay that total 80 percent of their normal 40-hour gross pay, said GM spokesman Dan Flores.

Greg Gardner, an analyst with the Oliver Wyman Group, said the cuts look like "a realistic assessment."

"The full-size pickup and SUV market is not going to rebound anytime soon," he said. "It looks like that they don't plan on making up very much of the production loss due to the American Axle strike."

Gardner said GM's announcement reflects the industry's overall production forecast this year, down to about 15 million light vehicles from an earlier forecast of 15.5 million.

The Flint, Pontiac and Oshawa plants make the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups, while Janesville manufactures the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban and GMC Yukon big SUVs.

GM said it did not forecast how many of those vehicles it expected to make this year, but it sold about 1.1 million of them in the U.S. last year, according to Autodata Corp.

GM said pickup sales overall are down 15 percent through March, while sales of large SUVs are off 26 percent.

Jesse Toprak, chief industry analyst for the auto information site Edmunds.com, said GM has a 92-day average supply of large trucks. A 60-day supply is considered optimal in the business.

Toprak said the automaker will lose about $4.4 billion in gross sales because of the production cuts, but it's nearly impossible to determine the impact on GM's net profits.

The production cuts should help GM keep its inventory under control, said Catherine Madden, an analyst with the consulting firm Global Insight.

The cuts come as 74,000 U.S. workers represented by the United Auto Workers face a May 22 deadline to decide on GM's latest round of buyout and early retirement offers.

AP Business Writer Jeff Karoub in Detroit contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_cuts
 
See less See more
#224 ·
Are you kidding me? Uh... The government is in it for the money. They loaned out their money, and they're expecting it back. Once it's paid back, they'll sell their shares to private individuals so the anti-cheesehead can be happy. The Obama administration has made it quite clear that they will NOT be running the auto companies. You guys are morons if you think it will ultimately be any different.

Also, yes, the government will be raising CAFE standards and will continue to regulate the auto industry as it has always done. But that is a completely separate issue. Just because the Treasury will become a major shareholder in the company doesn't mean Congress will be calling the shots.

Quite frankly everybody has taken a "haircut" but the unions. What they've given up is practically a joke. For GM and Chrysler to be profitable, those union contracts need to be shredded by a bankruptcy judge and renegotiated from scratch. Obama preserves most of what the union has got, plus hands them over ownership of the companies. This is a fool's paradise that we're living in.
Everyone hasn't taken a "haircut". If they did, then Chrysler wouldn't be in bankruptcy court right now. Most parties involved including the UAW and the major banks were willing to take a "haircut". The only parties that didn't were the hedge funds.

Also, do you even know what the UAW has given up in the last three or four years? Everything that people like the anti-cheesehead bitch about unions has basically been cut out of the contract, or at least made comparable to the non-union contracts.

I want you to list everything that you know has been renegotiated that is a joke, and I want you to tell me EXACTLY what is in the current contract that you personally feel should be taken out. It's one thing to ignorantly spout an anti-union tirade, it's another thing to actually know the reality of the situation.
 
#227 ·
Everything that people like the anti-cheesehead bitch about unions has basically been cut out of the contract, or at least made comparable to the non-union contracts.
Why was any of the B.S. in contracts in the first place? Oh, because the UAW threatened strikes if it didn't get what it wanted. If I recall correctly, it wasn't hedge funds negotiating these labor contracts.

And if it's all gone, then why do we need the union?

Stop making sense. the anti-cheesehead's head is going to explode.
How original.
 
#228 ·
I'm going to stick up for the Unions a bit here. The Union contracts got how they got because in the times of massive auto profits, before the arrival of high-quality imports, the Union (fairly I think) wanted a cut. The big three didn't want to give up their profits in the short term so as to no reduce share values, so the compromise was these gold-standard retirement benefits.

Fast forward to today, and I can see why the unions are reluctant to give up in bad times what is their delayed reward for the good times passed. Now, it may be in their best interests to do so, but that's another issue. The point is that it wasn't just the greedy unions fault for getting the best deal they could, management had to agree to them.

Now, if you want to get into the rotten management of the American auto industry... I mean, where to begin, right?
 
#233 · (Edited)
The fact that the U.S. even has a domestic auto industry can be attributed to the UAW. Every last possible job would be located in Mexico or India or China if the people you defend had their way.

Also, has non-union labor helped create jobs in the American South? Last time I checked some of the most anti-union states (e.g. South Carolina) have unemployment rates just as high or higher than some of the old manufacturing states of the Great Lakes.

Will you be satisfied when all the good-paying jobs are gone? Do you honestly think a college degree will help keep your own job when there are plenty of college-educated Indians willing to do your job for half the price? The corporations don't care about the well-being of the American people. They only care about posting the highest quarterly profits. The sooner you realize you have more in common with the average UAW member than with the CEOs that you fawn over, the sooner you'll realize how backwards your viewpoint is.
 
#234 ·
The fact that the U.S. even has a domestic auto industry can be attributed to the UAW. Every last possible job would be located in Mexico or India or China if the people you defend had their way.
So why are all of the auto plants in the southern US not in Mexico?

Why is it that it's mainly US manufacturers that flee to Mexico?

Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai build their best selling cars in the US, right here in the US. Their #1 sellers, their volumn sellers, are made here.

Ford's big sellers, some F series trucks, Fusions, the new Fiesta, made in Mexico.

Your logic is backwards.

Also, has non-union labor helped create jobs in the American South?
Yes, if the auto factories weren't there, there wouldn't be auto factory jobs.
 
#238 ·
I love how because you think the UAW contract looks like a phone book, it is now a matter of fact...
Maybe because it is a matter of fact...

You tell me I don't know what a UAW contract looks like?

You don't know what it looks like. I'll give you a hint. It weighs 22 pounds. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4667076n

Also, yes the UAW contracts basically deter the Big 3 from building non-union plants in the South. I'm not sure what the problem is...
So they go to Mexico. That was my point. Thanks.
 
#239 ·
Your source of that video is ultimately a biased anti-union website...


So they go to Mexico. That was my point. Thanks.
What's the big deal? Aren't you for a free market? Wouldn't you expect corporations to want to use cheap foreign labor? Also, I'd rather the Big 3 go to Mexico than see Southern Republicans get any kind of satisfaction.
 
#241 ·
Your source of that video is ultimately a biased anti-union website....
So it's a fake contract, right?

OK Hudkina, what does the real contract look like? What's in it?


What's the big deal?
You said if it weren't for the UAW, all of the jobs would be in Mexico, India, etc.

Which is of course, absolute B.S.

I was showing that it's because of the UAW that the big 3 manufacturing jobs are going to Mexico.

Only after significant concessions from the UAW will Ford be able to build the next gen Focus in Michigan and make good money on it. That's what Mulally says.

The fact that there needed to be significant concessions proves how out of line the original contract was in the first place. The original contract is the reason why Mexico got the Fusion/Milan, not Atlanta or Chicago.
 
#240 ·
Whoopsie.


Signboards of Toyota Motor are displayed at its dealers shop in Yokohama, nearby Tokyo May 8, 2009. Japan's Nikkei average edged down 0.2 percent on Friday after earlier touching a 6-month high, with little impact detected after U.S. regulators told top banks to raise $74.6 billion. Toyota Motor Corp skidded 1.2 percent lower to 3,980 yen after the Nikkei business daily said the automaker is expected to forecast an operating loss of around 700 billion yen for the current financial year ending next March. Toyota will announce earnings results after the bell.

REUTERS/Issei Kato

Toyota forecasts $8.6 billion annual loss as sales slide

By Chang-Ran Kim, Asia autos correspondent Chang-ran Kim, Asia Autos Correspondent – 2 hrs 17 mins ago

TOKYO (Reuters) – Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T), the world's biggest automaker, forecast a much deeper-than-expected annual loss of $8.6 billion as sales tumble, keeping dozens of its factories underused.

Toyota booked a $6.9 billion loss for the January-March fourth quarter and cut its annual dividend for the first time since at least 1994, when it changed its reporting period.

The global downturn that has battered demand for cars and pushed U.S. rival Chrysler (CBS.UL) into bankruptcy, has hit Toyota badly as it went from rapid expansion to overcapacity almost overnight. The Japanese giant posted its first-ever consolidated operating loss last year after a record profit the year before.

While the entire industry is caught in the slump and manufacturers are selling cars that have piled up in stockyards, Toyota has been especially vulnerable due to its exposure to the United States and Japan, where sales have plunged to multi-decade lows. Customers, fearing for their jobs, are putting off big-ticket purchases.
 
#243 ·
Toyota also needs to find a way to thrive in China, one of few growing markets. Toyota's Chinese sales fell 17% in April, while GM (GM, Fortune 500), which has a bigger presence in popular compact brands, saw a 50% rise.
Too bad GM does not follow the same rules as foreign makes and all the profits come back to the origin of that country. oh wait it was never a rule in the first place, the money made in the country stays in the country. woopsies :lol:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/08/aut...reakingviews/index.htm?postversion=2009050814

I forgot Toyota has full tank of Cash. :2cents:
 
#244 ·
I'm not saying it's a fake contract, I'm just saying that I would prefer to see an independent source, and not an anti-union propaganda website. Also, I'm not the one making any wild claims about the contract. I'm sure only a select few lawyers know the full details of the contract.

Also, if it wasn't for the UAW, I'm sure Ford would be making a lot more than the Fusion in Mexico. (BTW, the Fusion isn't built just for the American market. It's shipped all over the Americas.)
 
#254 · (Edited)
Toyota can afford to lose $8 billion one year, because they've made good money for the past 10.

GM has been posting almost unheard of losses for the past 2-3 years straight. Furthermore, their North American division hasn't made money in almost a decade.

People complain about GM making cars in China, Mexico, etc. but they would have reached the brink of bankruptcy even earlier if their profitable overseas divisions hadn't been bankrolling their lossy North American division for so long.

I've historically been a big GM supporter, but now that it's run by a bunch of rat fuckers from Goldman Sachs like that midget Geithner, Larry Summers, and God knows who else, I just don't think I can buy any of their products. I'd feel better driving a German car or something.
 
#261 · (Edited)
Are you kidding me? free markets and deregulation are the Republican motto. The Republican Party gained control of the House and Senate in 1995 and held it for over a decade, and that doesn't even include the reign of the Conservative Coaltion of Republicans and conservative southern Democrats throughout the 80's.

The Republican-controlled Congress repealed the Glass-Stegall Act, allowing commercial banks to become investment banks and vice versa. The Federal Reserve, controlled by free-market conservative Alan Greenspan, lowered the interest rates so much that everyone and their unemployed cousin could get a loan. Congress failed to regulate the shadow market wherein certain investment banks (i.e. Lehman Bros.) were selling Credit Default "don't call me insurance" Swaps on what were effectively subprime mortgages.

The reality is that the conservative free-market ideals championed by Republicans (even if some fellow Democrats went along) as well as the deregulation and lack of proper regulation championed by Republicans are the primary reason we are in this financial mess. It's obvious that the the economic policies of the Republicans that had dominated the government for over a decade were calamitous.

Yes, the Democrats don't escape blame. The repeal of G-S was supported by congresspeople on both sides and signed by Clinton, and yes certain "liberal" groups were just as guilty as the banks as far as "helping" people get mortgages who really shouldn't have gotten them. However, that is only half the story. The reason so many banks failed was the unregulated credit default swaps. They were insuring all these bad loans with what amounted to trillions of dollars that they obviously didn't have. It's similar to the 20's and 30's when the banks didn't have enough money to cover the deposits of their customers.

The point is that the Republican ideology of deregulation and free-market policies only lead to greed, corruption, and ultimately economic disaster.


 
#262 ·
BTW, I'm just as "left" as you are "right" and both of us are more "centrist" than the other gives credit for.

I don't believe that we need a massive government and certainly shouldn't be running massive deficits. However, I do think we need to have as many checks and balances over the economy as possible for the simple fact that without them, greed will rule supreme. And as I've said before, the only fields that the government should have a strong and steady presence in are Healtchare (hospitals and drug companies), Education (universities and trade schools), and Finances (insurance and banking). That's not to say that everything should become completely socialized, but that those three fields shouldn't be entirely profit-driven.
 
#263 ·
The most recent news is that GM may be leaving Detroit for Warren, MI (which isn't exactly Beverly Hills itself). Can't blame them, for having to deal with all the hassles of doing business in Detroit proper for decades will getting lousy city services and slapped with an additional income tax in return.
 
#264 ·
You're a moron. This is a story fabricated by the local media to sell newspapers. If your so stupid that you can't understand that, then I feel sorry for you.

The actual story is that a few reporters asked if the "cost-cutting" strategy that GM was enacting involved the possibility of GM consolidating its business operations with one possible scenario being that it would move its corporate offices to the Tech Center in Warren.

Because the CEO didn't specifically deny that and said that all options were possible, this allowed the media to run to their computers and type up this scenario as if it were the reality of the situation.

Henderson also said that such a cost-cutting measure was very, very low on the priority list and that GM wasn't actively seeking to leave Detroit. In fact he made it a point to mention that they were proud to be at the Ren Cen in Detroit.

So, hurry up and pack your bags for Las Vegas, because we don't need your idiocy in the Midwest.
 
#267 ·
Well, all of the top GM officers sold off all of their shares in the company. Even good ole' Bob Lutz. He loved GM.

So much for the captain(s) going down with the ship.

Now it's time for the Obama style bankruptcy, meaning not a real bankruptcy where a judge figures things out. Even though the UAW and the debt holders are on the same exact spot on the totem pole, we all know who's gonna take the biggest fall.

This will be interesting.
 
#269 ·
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=anKMw.afd7qw&refer=home#

Bill Ford Says Shunning Rescue in ‘National Interest’ (Update3)

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Ford Motor Co. Executive Chairman Bill Ford, great-grandson of the company’s founder, said it is in the national interest that the automaker keep operating without federal aid.

“It’s in the country’s interest that Ford remain free of taxpayer money,” Ford said yesterday in an interview in his Dearborn, Michigan, office overlooking the 2,000-acre Rouge factory complex built by Henry Ford. “Anything we can do to minimize the amount of taxpayer money going into the private sector is probably a good thing.”

Ford, 52, said he has talked with members of the Obama administration to ensure the company isn’t hurt by being the only U.S. automaker to forgo federal funds. Chrysler LLC is restructuring in a U.S.-backed bankruptcy, and General Motors Corp. probably also will end up in Chapter 11 by June 1.

The discussions are aimed at “not being disadvantaged from the fact that we’re an independent company, not taking taxpayer money,” Ford said. “That’s in the national interest that that happens.”

His comments reinforced the company’s efforts to distance itself from Chrysler and GM, which received $19.4 billion in emergency loans to stave off collapse. While those automakers restructure in and out of court, Ford Motor has been showcasing projects such as factory investments to support new small cars.

Ford Motor’s strategy on a bailout evolved throughout late 2008, Ford said.

‘Go It Alone’

On Dec. 2, Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally testified to Congress with the CEOs of GM and Chrysler and appealed for a $9 billion credit line. Within weeks, the second-largest U.S. automaker reversed the decision after deciding it had the cash to “go it alone,” said Ford, who served CEO before he hired Mulally in 2006.

“When we started seeing what the restrictions of taking government money would mean to our ability to operate quickly and strategically, we felt that wasn’t a position we wanted to be in,” Ford said. “We felt we could pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and make it on our own.”

While Ford Motor lost a record $14.7 billion in 2008 and remains at risk from the worst U.S. auto market in 27 years, it’s getting a public-image boost for not taking government aid, said Efraim Levy, a Standard & Poor’s equity analyst.

“Ford is benefiting from its independence,” said Levy, who is based in New York and advises holding the shares. “Consumers don’t resent them for taking their tax dollars to stay alive.”

Mulally’s Gambit

Mulally’s borrowing of $23 billion in late 2006, with all the company’s major assets pledged as collateral, positioned Ford Motor to shun a rescue, Levy said.

“Ford was fortunate enough to get those loans in advance of the credit markets freezing up,” he said. “Take away that liquidity, and Ford would be in the same boat as the other two.”

Ford Motor has more than doubled this year in New York Stock Exchange composite trading as it cut debt by $9.9 billion and won concessions from the United Auto Workers to pare annual labor costs by $500 million. The shares fell 22 cents, or 3.9 percent, to $5.41 at 4:15 p.m. in New York.

Bonds for Ford Motor’s lending arm, Ford Motor Credit, rallied today. Ford Credit’s 7 percent notes due October 2013 rose 3.5 cents to 81.3 cents on the dollar, the highest since June, according to Trace, the bond-pricing service of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The yield was 12.7 percent.

With $21.3 billion in automotive cash at the end of March, Ford Motor is now working to add new, fuel-efficient models and retool factories to wean itself from dependence on fuel-thirsty trucks.

Opportunity, Caution

“This is a time of real opportunity for us, but also some real cautions as well,” Ford said. “We are spending a lot of time trying to figure out what this all means to us.”

Among the risks are lower costs and better financing for GM and Chrysler from a U.S.-backed restructuring, said Brian Johnson, a Chicago-based Barclays Capital analyst. He rates Ford as “underweight.”

More funding for those automakers and their credit arms would increase “their ability to offer discount financing and subsidize price wars,” Johnson said. “It will certainly put pressure on Ford’s strategy to improve their retail prices.”

Ford said the automaker is improving its prospects with new models like the Fiesta subcompact car coming from Europe and the Fusion hybrid, along with two battery-powered autos coming in the next two years and a plug-in hybrid due in 2012.

‘Competitive Position’

“I really like our competitive position,” Ford said. “Having said that, we are still speaking with the government to say, where possible, ‘Please don’t disadvantage us.’”

Besides his own contacts with administration officials, company executives talk frequently with President Barack Obama’s autos task force, Ford said.

He said he was pleased shareholders rejected a proposal at the May 14 annual meeting to strip Ford family members of a special class of stock that gives them 40 percent voting control of the 105-year-old company. Bill Ford and his cousin, Edsel Ford II, are directors.

“I would hope that shareholders would see that our interests are aligned with theirs,” Ford said. “It’s more than just a financial investment, it’s an emotional investment. It’s pride. I mean, our name is on the product. If it was just a financial investment, the family probably would have been out years and years ago.”









I really hope Ford does well. I do think they will be disadvantaged by going it alone, but that disadvantage might be wiped out by the massive consumer goodwill they're earning....especially in rural markets where GM and Chrysler are closing dealerships.

The fact that the Ford family and shareholders control this company instead of the government and the unions is enough to make MANY, MANY people buy a Ford over a GM or Chrysler. Do you want a Gettlefinger Motors vehicle or a FORD. I'll take the FORD.

I believe this GM and Chrysler government experiment is going to fail, Ford will do well and will end up being THE American automaker and buy up many of GM and Chrysler's assets for next to nothing.

I hope Ford buries GM and Chrysler and I know I am not the only one who shares that sentiment.
 
#275 ·
Senators press Chrysler to alter dealer closing offers

By JUSTIN HYDE • FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF WRITER • May 21, 2009

Opposition grew in the U.S. Senate today to Chrysler LLC's plan to shutter 789 dealerships in just under three weeks, with lawmakers calling on Chrysler and the Obama administration to change the terms dictated by the automaker.

An amendment from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, that would block federal aid for Chrysler or General Motors if they didn't give dealers at least 60 days notice before closing had garnered 20 cosponsors, including a number of key Democrats. Hutchison said she had been in talks with the White House and Chrysler Chairman Robert Nardelli on modifications to Chrysler's plans.

"I have not seen a progress report that we (could) come back to the floor and say we will get some help for these dealers," Hutchison said.

It wasn't clear this afternoon whether Hutchison could get a vote on her amendment to a spending bill.

The amendment reflects growing concern in Congress about the painful compromises laid out by the Obama administration's auto task force as part of its rescues of Chrysler and General Motors Corp. The administration also faced questions today over its treatment of GM bondholders, whose $27 billion in GM debt would be swapped for 10% of a reworked GM under the government's plan.

Chrysler has said it would reject the 789 dealership contracts as part of its plan to transfer the remaining dealer contracts to a Chrysler-Fiat partnership before the end of June. The rejected dealers have until June 9 to wind down their businesses, after which they will have no rights to sell new vehicles, parts or perform warranty repairs.

Because of its bankruptcy, Chrysler said it could not buy back the vehicles or parts at the affected dealerships. Dealers would either have to find buyers among surviving dealers or liquidate their inventory in a fire sale.

Under state laws, dealers have several ways to fight an automaker if it wants to end their contract, but bankruptcy law typically gives companies broad power to reject any contract.

Hutchison said Chrysler should either make arrangements to buy back inventory or extend the deadline for the dealers to wind down. Such changes would have to be made in Chrysler's bankruptcy case, where U.S. Judge Arthur Gonzalez has yet to approve the plan.

GM has told 1,100 dealers that it would end its contracts by October 2010. Yet its unclear how GM's efforts might change should the company file for bankruptcy and pursue the same kind of quick sale of assets to a "new" entity, a strategy it says it will use if it does not win concessions from bondholders over the next several days.

The National Automobile Dealer Association said the combined cuts would eliminate nearly 100,000 jobs. It said it was asking the Obama administration and automakers "to ensure that these dealerships and the people who work there have enough time to properly close their businesses and find new jobs."

Contact Justin Hyde at 202-906-8204 or jhyde@freepress.com.

http://www.freep.com/article/200905...press+Chrysler+to+alter+dealer+closing+offers

--

Boo fucking hoo. Deal with it. You wanted Chrysler to trim down, well there ya go.
 
#279 ·
Not necessarily. I'm a big fan of heavily Arab Dearborn.

Again I think if you're a non-black minority who tend to get ignored here, i.e. Hispanic or Asian, metro Detroit is a pretty good place and probably the second best place after Chicago in the Midwest, because a lot of other Midwestern cities like Cincinnati are just heavily polarized between white and black. :cheers:
 
#283 ·
Everyone gazes at their navel....It is a big world out there and the bottom line is money! Money return for the shareholder.....I love Ford...I have owned many Fords..still have a one owner Model T.....bought buy my grandfather in 1926. I want Ford to continue as a viable manufacturer but know auto parts companies need more than one company to stay viable. I am in Australia...a way off outpost in the world but wonder why our cars are way ahead of US cars ? Take off the blinkers...get ,moving and bring your technology up to European, Asian..and Australian standards.....we are on your side. This is not meant to be derogatory but the world in 2009 is not all about who builds the biggest and best SUV.
 
#284 · (Edited)
The problem is not that we can't build good cars...we certainly can. No one makes better trucks, for example.

The problem is that we slacked off, got greedy, and now the other companies have already started to overtake ours.

And that last sentence was completely unnecessary. There are way more SUV's on the road than I'd care to see, but that is not by any means the focus of American automakers, not now anyway.
 
#285 ·
What Australian cars are so good? Australia hasn't got any of its own automakers, as Holden has long been part of GM. They sold the Pontiac GTO here, which was a huge flop. They later brought over one of the other Holdens as a Pontiac G8, but I would still much rather have a Cadillac CTS, Dodge Challenger, or a host of other cars before I would get one of those.

The people in America have a strong preference for SUVs which is why the automakers build them. Period. Light trucks are still over 50% of the market (whereas hybrids are about 2%, though you might think the opposite was the case if you believed the media). Toyota has perhaps one of the most expansive lineups of trucks, vans, and SUVs.

Because of high labor costs in America, it's not easy to profitably produce small cars. This also skews American production heavily towards big vehicles.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top