Corvette and Camaro SS soon to be dead?
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
You answered your own question below...
I couldn't agree more. But HOW is the government "running" GM?
Are they saying, "Put aluminum trim on that truck that is .024 thick and only 18" long without anodizing it" or are they saying, "Mr. W, you have been at the helm for XX years and the trend has been going down the entire time you have been in charge. You have not shown us anything to indicate that you are changing the current business model. We have seen you authorize projects and turn right around and kill them. We have seen you invest huge money into a program that is expected to generate loss for you. I'm sorry, but we really need for you to step aside and let someone else have a shot at this for a bit, or we're going to have to quit giving you money."
I see them getting involved by making recommendations and suggestions regarding the BUSINESS. I do not see the government coming in and saying, "You must stop making the Corvette, you must stop making the G8, you must start making E-Z-Go Golf Carts."
I personally can see a line in the sand between trying to get a company to make good business decisions versus telling a company how they will design their product, choose colors, and seat coverings for them. I am not seeing the latter one yet.
PS - Please excuse my sarcasm here, and it is being sarcastic... But has anyone in Washington said that GM can not make the G8 and put a bowtie on the front and "Chevelle" badges on the fenders? See my point?
I couldn't agree more. But HOW is the government "running" GM?
Are they saying, "Put aluminum trim on that truck that is .024 thick and only 18" long without anodizing it" or are they saying, "Mr. W, you have been at the helm for XX years and the trend has been going down the entire time you have been in charge. You have not shown us anything to indicate that you are changing the current business model. We have seen you authorize projects and turn right around and kill them. We have seen you invest huge money into a program that is expected to generate loss for you. I'm sorry, but we really need for you to step aside and let someone else have a shot at this for a bit, or we're going to have to quit giving you money."
I see them getting involved by making recommendations and suggestions regarding the BUSINESS. I do not see the government coming in and saying, "You must stop making the Corvette, you must stop making the G8, you must start making E-Z-Go Golf Carts."
I personally can see a line in the sand between trying to get a company to make good business decisions versus telling a company how they will design their product, choose colors, and seat coverings for them. I am not seeing the latter one yet.
PS - Please excuse my sarcasm here, and it is being sarcastic... But has anyone in Washington said that GM can not make the G8 and put a bowtie on the front and "Chevelle" badges on the fenders? See my point?
No, I do not feel they are micro-managing things such as what colors of paint to use and what style of wheels to put on a vehcile... but I do think they are FORCING changes.
They said "If you want more money, Wagoner must go."
People can say "well, they don't have to take the money", but we all know they have no other choice but to die, and obviously that is not an 'option' anyone would take.
With this said, Mr. Obama et al specifically pointed the 'gun' at Wagoner.
The second case is Pontiac.
GM's original plan called for a scaled back Pontiac to survive. Mr. Obama et al said "Sorry, that won't do. If you want more money, re-do things".... options once again are comply or die.
This is not quite as direct as the Wagoner issue, as I suppose Buick could have been dropped or GMC... rather than Pontiac... but this is clearly not something GM would have liked to do, otherwise it would have been in the first restructuring plan.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
No, I do not feel they are micro-managing things such as what colors of paint to use and what style of wheels to put on a vehcile... but I do think they are FORCING changes.
They said "If you want more money, Wagoner must go."
People can say "well, they don't have to take the money", but we all know they have no other choice but to die, and obviously that is not an 'option' anyone would take.
With this said, Mr. Obama et al specifically pointed the 'gun' at Wagoner.
The second case is Pontiac.
GM's original plan called for a scaled back Pontiac to survive. Mr. Obama et al said "Sorry, that won't do. If you want more money, re-do things".... options once again are comply or die.
This is not quite as direct as the Wagoner issue, as I suppose Buick could have been dropped or GMC... rather than Pontiac... but this is clearly not something GM would have liked to do, otherwise it would have been in the first restructuring plan.
They said "If you want more money, Wagoner must go."
People can say "well, they don't have to take the money", but we all know they have no other choice but to die, and obviously that is not an 'option' anyone would take.
With this said, Mr. Obama et al specifically pointed the 'gun' at Wagoner.
The second case is Pontiac.
GM's original plan called for a scaled back Pontiac to survive. Mr. Obama et al said "Sorry, that won't do. If you want more money, re-do things".... options once again are comply or die.
This is not quite as direct as the Wagoner issue, as I suppose Buick could have been dropped or GMC... rather than Pontiac... but this is clearly not something GM would have liked to do, otherwise it would have been in the first restructuring plan.
That could be viewed as a micro management dictum. It will likely become an example of stare decisis from henceforth. I'll grant it's not handed down by the judiciary, but I bet it sticks nonetheless.
You know the ironic play on the Golden Rule? "He with the gold makes the rules."
Last edited by 1fastdog; Apr 30, 2009 at 01:32 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
I don't want big brother in any more business than necessary.
What is spooky though, is that the auto industry and government have actually been kindred spirits for 50-60 years or more. Big players often are tapped to go one way or another in that relationship.
Robert McNamara was President of Ford when he was asked by JFK to be the Secretary od Defense. There have been dozens from Ford, GM, and Chrysler that have gone from government to automaker and vice-versa over the decades. That doesn't help you think that one can leave the other's business alone, does it?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
No, I do not feel they are micro-managing things such as what colors of paint to use and what style of wheels to put on a vehcile... but I do think they are FORCING changes.
They said "If you want more money, Wagoner must go."
People can say "well, they don't have to take the money", but we all know they have no other choice but to die, and obviously that is not an 'option' anyone would take.
With this said, Mr. Obama et al specifically pointed the 'gun' at Wagoner.
The second case is Pontiac.
GM's original plan called for a scaled back Pontiac to survive. Mr. Obama et al said "Sorry, that won't do. If you want more money, re-do things".... options once again are comply or die.
This is not quite as direct as the Wagoner issue, as I suppose Buick could have been dropped or GMC... rather than Pontiac... but this is clearly not something GM would have liked to do, otherwise it would have been in the first restructuring plan.
They said "If you want more money, Wagoner must go."
People can say "well, they don't have to take the money", but we all know they have no other choice but to die, and obviously that is not an 'option' anyone would take.
With this said, Mr. Obama et al specifically pointed the 'gun' at Wagoner.
The second case is Pontiac.
GM's original plan called for a scaled back Pontiac to survive. Mr. Obama et al said "Sorry, that won't do. If you want more money, re-do things".... options once again are comply or die.
This is not quite as direct as the Wagoner issue, as I suppose Buick could have been dropped or GMC... rather than Pontiac... but this is clearly not something GM would have liked to do, otherwise it would have been in the first restructuring plan.
My friend, I pointed the gun at Wagner and the BOD last summer on this very board for reasons I stated clearly... well before all this bailout stuff hit the fan.
The only difference is, they were not asking me to save them from disappearing from earth when I did it, so they did not have to listen to me... then...
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Here is a point being ignored:
It may make sense to kill most of the Pontiac line, but I have yet to see any logical reason to kill the entire brand over the much more sane approach of keeping it as a niche with the acclaimed, and profitable G8 as its center.
Other than Solstice, the rest of the line is crap and needed to go.
It may make sense to kill most of the Pontiac line, but I have yet to see any logical reason to kill the entire brand over the much more sane approach of keeping it as a niche with the acclaimed, and profitable G8 as its center.
Other than Solstice, the rest of the line is crap and needed to go.
Make of that what you will.
In the Chrysler reorg, the UAW comes out as the 55% stakeholder of Chrysler. FIAT starts at 20% and can ratchet up to 35% stake.
UAW pensions and healthcare are reported to still be government backed.
FIAT can not acquire majority stake until all taxpayer funds are repayed, according to Obama's statement today. One would suppose for FIAT to hold a majority the UAW would need to sell some stake. By simple math, 55% and up to 35% are out of play. My abacus says 90% is spoken for from the get go.
A part of the deal which FIAT, the UAW, and other agreeable parties includes production of a 40 mpg vehicle at a Chrysler plant here.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
The second case is Pontiac.
GM's original plan called for a scaled back Pontiac to survive. Mr. Obama et al said "Sorry, that won't do. If you want more money, re-do things".... options once again are comply or die.
This is not quite as direct as the Wagoner issue, as I suppose Buick could have been dropped or GMC... rather than Pontiac... but this is clearly not something GM would have liked to do, otherwise it would have been in the first restructuring plan.
GM's original plan called for a scaled back Pontiac to survive. Mr. Obama et al said "Sorry, that won't do. If you want more money, re-do things".... options once again are comply or die.
This is not quite as direct as the Wagoner issue, as I suppose Buick could have been dropped or GMC... rather than Pontiac... but this is clearly not something GM would have liked to do, otherwise it would have been in the first restructuring plan.
Seriously though, something drastic needed to be done. Pontiac turned into a rental fleet queen. Only a few products weren't rebadged chevy's. They were competing for the same customer base. Pontiac needed a major face lift to survive. I think the new CEO is doing a great job of fixing the problems that are out there. I hope he can continue this to make GM profitable again.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
The first restructuring plan didn't have a lot of information in it. It missed several requirements. None of those requirements said, cut brands. At least none that I know of. Is it just speculation that you have that he said cut Pontiac? Or was it more of, to make the requirement of being profitable by X date, which was a requirement for the restructuring, GM decided to cut Pontiac.
If that's true, the only thing the ATF told them was to speed things up.
Last edited by flowmotion; Apr 30, 2009 at 10:20 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 654
From: Snow Belt, PA
if you finance a car, and have good credit, you can buy whatever car you want
but if you walk onto a car lot and your credit score is a 430.. your interest rate will be so high that you'll have to buy a cheap pos in order to keep your payment down, so when you go looking at an Escalade, they're going to swing you over to the 99 Malibu and tell you "this is what we can put you in"
the government is only setting these restrictions because it's lending money to a company with a 300 credit score... when you can't pay back your debt and your credit sucks, you are always going to have more restrictions
say I have a crappy credit score and I want a credit card... guess what, if I EVEN GET ONE, it'll be at 21% interest with a $500 limit and $1 finance charge per transaction and a whole bunch of other limitations... well this is the same boat GM is in, and the government needs to make sure they can survive
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
you are way off on this one
if you finance a car, and have good credit, you can buy whatever car you want
but if you walk onto a car lot and your credit score is a 430.. your interest rate will be so high that you'll have to buy a cheap pos in order to keep your payment down, so when you go looking at an Escalade, they're going to swing you over to the 99 Malibu and tell you "this is what we can put you in"
the government is only setting these restrictions because it's lending money to a company with a 300 credit score... when you can't pay back your debt and your credit sucks, you are always going to have more restrictions
say I have a crappy credit score and I want a credit card... guess what, if I EVEN GET ONE, it'll be at 21% interest with a $500 limit and $1 finance charge per transaction and a whole bunch of other limitations... well this is the same boat GM is in, and the government needs to make sure they can survive
if you finance a car, and have good credit, you can buy whatever car you want
but if you walk onto a car lot and your credit score is a 430.. your interest rate will be so high that you'll have to buy a cheap pos in order to keep your payment down, so when you go looking at an Escalade, they're going to swing you over to the 99 Malibu and tell you "this is what we can put you in"
the government is only setting these restrictions because it's lending money to a company with a 300 credit score... when you can't pay back your debt and your credit sucks, you are always going to have more restrictions
say I have a crappy credit score and I want a credit card... guess what, if I EVEN GET ONE, it'll be at 21% interest with a $500 limit and $1 finance charge per transaction and a whole bunch of other limitations... well this is the same boat GM is in, and the government needs to make sure they can survive
Except your credit card company doesn't tell you what you can buy with the credit card.
And if you are willing to take the the loan at 29% interest you can be damn sure that used car dealer will sell you that used Escalade too.
If you want it to be the same with the govt and GM, then the govt should have imposed higher interest rates on the 'bailout loans'.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,503
From: BFE, Ohio
