GM and Chrysler?
Hudsonrules
Senior Contributor
:eek:Was reading in the paper that G.M. and Chrysler are talking about a possible "MERGER" ahhhhhhhhhh. Would we see more great names go the way of HUDSON? I would not be interested in a Chevy -GMC bodied Dodge truck, or a Buick bodied Chrysler among others. If that were to happen, if there are any traces of the Hudson in all the paperwork or archives, I am sure that it would dissappear. Then G.M. would be able to producethe Corvette Hornet or a Buick Wasp, maby a Pontiac Pacemaker or a Cadilac Traveler.
It is a shame that so many great names in the history of the Automobile have vanished from Detroit, with probably more to come. Ford is hurting as well. I may be wrong, but I feel that cars are just getting to expensive to buy and to repair, to complex, and lots of competition for so many models. Many of which are pretty much the same from various manufacturers but with different name tags.
I would like to see one of the remaing "Big Three" produce a reliable safe economy car that waspriced way under ten grand. It would not have all the toys, but would be basic, something like the idea behind the Essex Four or Model "A". Of course the public would have to be willing to accept that they would actually use a handle to close the car windows, or a lever to move the seat. We do not need vehicles that cost 40-60 thousand dollars when new to find out they are worth ten thousand dollars two years later. Perhaps another problem facing Detroit are the dealers and their false advertising and fraudulent rebates.
I may sound like a hypocrite as our family vehicles have import names on them even though they are built in the United States, the cars just seemed more reliable and the dealers treated me better than domestics. Arnie
It is a shame that so many great names in the history of the Automobile have vanished from Detroit, with probably more to come. Ford is hurting as well. I may be wrong, but I feel that cars are just getting to expensive to buy and to repair, to complex, and lots of competition for so many models. Many of which are pretty much the same from various manufacturers but with different name tags.
I would like to see one of the remaing "Big Three" produce a reliable safe economy car that waspriced way under ten grand. It would not have all the toys, but would be basic, something like the idea behind the Essex Four or Model "A". Of course the public would have to be willing to accept that they would actually use a handle to close the car windows, or a lever to move the seat. We do not need vehicles that cost 40-60 thousand dollars when new to find out they are worth ten thousand dollars two years later. Perhaps another problem facing Detroit are the dealers and their false advertising and fraudulent rebates.
I may sound like a hypocrite as our family vehicles have import names on them even though they are built in the United States, the cars just seemed more reliable and the dealers treated me better than domestics. Arnie
0
Comments
-
Cerebrus wants the GMAC finiancing arm of GM. I would not expect to see product line mergers, "Vipervettes", or any of that nonsense. Cerebrus is FAT with cash, and since it is NOT a shareholder-held company like GM is, it can do what it wants. GM needs the cash infusion, and Cerebrus buying the GMAC financing business (the only money-maker GM has!) would help GM in the short term.
No, you are not going to see a Chevy Hornet.
Personally, I don't see any kind of "merger" occurring. The gub'mint will bail GM and Ford out. Cerebrus HAS money. Ford and GM do not.0 -
Our auto industry needs an enema and so do their union leaders. The enviromental wacko's in our Gov could relax some of their regulations (say two years) and allow the US Companies to sell some of their most popular european models here that already get 65 MPG. You'll sell more cars, use less gas and pollute less than what Tijuana Mexico dumps in the air, ocean, etc every day.
It isn't a stretch to say that depending who gets in the White house may also help determine how much the Govt will bail out / own the car companies- just like France... yuck.0 -
The problem with Detroit, aside from the fact that they've pretty much been producing "assembled" cars (parts from other countries) is that they've convinced themselves that Americans want big, expensive, inefficient cars. And they can't get past that fact.
Both GM and Ford are reluctantly coming around to the fact that big cars are dinosaurs. Chrysler is in trouble because it simply doesn't have the where-withall to change. However, that said, with oil down around $65 a gallon it won't be long before the big 3 will be touting large cars again. And the public will buy.
What the manufacturers can't do is admit that if the only thing available is a smaller, fuel efficient car, people will buy that.
It comes down to the bottom line. It doesn't cost that much more to build a Suburban than it does to build a small car, beleive it or not. But, and here's the reason for the big car - the profit margin is way higher on the bigger car.
The auto industry went to hell in a handbasket because of the bean counters in the accounting department. When the engineers were building cars, you got a decent product at a reasonable price.
Hudsonly,
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN0 -
Alex,
I agree. Detroit stopped building cars and started producing profits for the shareholders back in the 50's, when the bean counters accended to the heads of these companies. Prior to that the leaders were engineers and they produced automobiles.0 -
Weight is the enemy when it comes to the new cars. Because of federally mandated safety crap and American's insistence that there are no rattles in their cars, our cars weigh 1000+ lbs more than they need to. One of my 'go to work' cars is a '91 Chrysler Convertible with a 3.0 V6. It weighs 3010lbs and gets me 25mpg in my daily driving. The new Chrysler Sebring conv. is huge in comparison to my '91, weighs over 3900 lbs and is rated 16mpg in city driving.0
-
royer wrote:Weight is the enemy when it comes to the new cars. Because of federally mandated safety crap and American's insistence that there are no rattles in their cars, our cars weigh 1000+ lbs more than they need to. One of my 'go to work' cars is a '91 Chrysler Convertible with a 3.0 V6. It weighs 3010lbs and gets me 25mpg in my daily driving. The new Chrysler Sebring conv. is huge in comparison to my '91, weighs over 3900 lbs and is rated 16mpg in city driving.
The Caddy ('97) weighs, according to the tag on the door, 5165 pounds. And it still gets 26-27 mpg on the interstate at 70-75 mph.
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN0 -
GM won't be buying Chrysler, as they can't find the cash to do so. Cerebrus wants to trade Chrysler for the 51% of GMAC that GM still owns. That's the last thing GM needs. Look for Carlos Ghosn and Nissan to buy 20% of Chrysler.0
-
hudsontech wrote: »Both GM and Ford are reluctantly coming around to the fact that big cars are dinosaurs. Chrysler is in trouble because it simply doesn't have the where-withall to change.
What the manufacturers can't do is admit that if the only thing available is a smaller, fuel efficient car, people will buy that.
It comes down to the bottom line. It doesn't cost that much more to build a Suburban than it does to build a small car, beleive it or not. But, and here's the reason for the big car - the profit margin is way higher on the bigger car.
The auto industry went to hell in a handbasket because of the bean counters in the accounting department. When the engineers were building cars, you got a decent product at a reasonable price.
The auto industry has ALWAYS been about bean counters and shareholders. ALL companies are in business to make a PROFIT. They won't stay in business long if they don't, am I right???
Why should I be compelled to buy an itty-bitty car? Are we not about freedom of choice in the consumer world? The LAST thing I want is the damn gub'mint telling Detroit they MUST build small microcars to meet some sort of misguided "demand" that does not exist. The worst thing you can do is "force" that demand, because NO one but the most rabid Socialist will support such a move. Plus, that would instantly kill the American auto industry! Do you really want an East German-style auto industry that produces a "choice" of two or three cars??? Availability of cars with maybe two or three options (don't look for air conditioning, it contributes to "global warming", dont'cha know?). A two year wait for your car to show up at the lone dealership in town?
Consumer demand drives what Detroit builds...it always has! Why did Hudson go out of business? It had essentially the same car for seven model years, without major styling differences or powerplant changes, PLUS the debut and failure of a far-too-quirky "small car" in the Jet, while the rest of Detroit sailed right past them! They merged, and then they died as a marque. Sound familiar these days??? Does to me!
the marketplace, NOT DC, drives what is produced by the automakers. Gub'mint regs have made cars grow heavier and less economical since the early '90s, especially. My Dad's old '80 Honda Civic CVCC 2-door got an HONEST 51 mpg. A new Honda Civic is only rated to a measly 32 mpg. Add all those mandated airbags (eight in a Civic now!), plus all the other crap, and you can plainly see the fault is hardly the sole domain of the automakers!0 -
A merger won't solve anything. All the mergers in the fifties of the independents did not change much, and their inevitable demise happend.
The mergers of the 1950's occured because the companies involved were failing. Two failures added together does not equal one success.
Gm and Chrysler are both failing, along with Ford.
The real problem is the unions. GM and the others are saddled with horrendously expensive and ridiculous contracts with the UAW.
The automakers in the US who are not failing are Toyota, Honda, etc. Their US plants are not unionized, thus not saddled with those problems.
I read recently that GM loses something like $1800 on every car it sells in the US, and that Toyota/Honda makes $2000.
The raw materials do not cost GM more...the added cost for them, which results in a loss, is the union contracts.
Go figure.0 -
Just heard Chryslers laying of 25% of its workforce, through layoff, attrition and early retirement buyouts.
GM is closing down plants
Ford is hurting too.
I've only bought 1 new car my entire life - and I'd never do it again.
It's not the quality ~ it's the money you lose. I'd rather spend my money buying a piece of property than the monthly car/insurance payments.
One thing I've never understood about the auto industry....why have so many cars smothering the lots? Producing unit after unit to just sit across the USA, fuel, insurance, shipping, storage, labor, damage repair... I think it's insane!0 -
No one is selling cars right now, regardless of the maker or origin. Even with all of the incentives and such, the sales are down across the board, and all over the world. We are not alone in this mess.
A buyer can hardly find a car these days, regardless of size, that does not have every single gadget, toy and sensor on it. A car like a '78 Ford Fiesta would sell like hotcakes right now! Rubber floor mat, FWD, 4-speed manual, air, and an AM/FM radio. Any automaker that would built that for less than $10K would sell more that they could build!
Same for a truck. The closest you can get to a "stripper" truck is a V-6/5-speed manual with air, half-ton from any of the Big 3. But, with incentives, rebates, and such, it is STILL over $12K!!!
Nuts, I tell ya!0 -
rambos_ride wrote:Just heard Chryslers laying of 25% of its workforce, through layoff, attrition and early retirement buyouts.
That's 25% of its white collar workers or 5,000 people.
GM is closing down plants
And talking with Cerberus about a merger.
Ford is hurting too.
At least they posted a gain on the ticker today.
I've only bought 1 new car my entire life - and I'd never do it again.
It's not the quality ~ it's the money you lose. I'd rather spend my money buying a piece of property than the monthly car/insurance payments.
Property values have dropped just about everywhere.
One thing I've never understood about the auto industry....why have so many cars smothering the lots? Producing unit after unit to just sit across the USA, fuel, insurance, shipping, storage, labor, damage repair... I think it's insane!
Are you advocating that the auto industry haul production then?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- 37K All Categories
- 115 Hudson 1916 - 1929
- 21 Upcoming Events
- 94 Essex Super 6
- 28.6K HUDSON
- 576 "How To" - Skills, mechanical and other wise
- 995 Street Rods
- 151 American Motors
- 180 The Flathead Forum
- 49 Manuals, etc,.
- 78 Hudson 8
- 44 FORUM - Instructions and Tips on using the forum
- 2.8K CLASSIFIEDS
- 609 Vehicles
- 2.2K Parts & Pieces
- 77 Literature & Memorabilia
- Hudson 1916 - 1929 Yahoo Groups Archived Photos