What is Digg?137 Comments
- disrupter, on 10/13/2008, -10/+41So now American cars will be twice as unreliable
- whiteyx, on 10/13/2008, -3/+29As a lifetime Lansing resident, I don't see how this is beneficial to GM.
They need to spend their resources on oil-less tech rather than merge with Chrysler, whose definitely seen better days.
When did ***** Company + ***** Company = Better Company?
Yes, GM is on the right track with the Volt, but we need more. *****, they need more if they want to survive the onslaught of Eastern-world made vehicles, that are becoming oh-so popular because they don't cause half a mortgage to drive per month. - contractcentral, on 10/11/2008, -2/+22GM should file for bankruptcy protection if it wants to grow.
- BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -3/+19Public opinion is not fact. Do some actual research on quality ratings for VW, BMW, Toyota and Honda. You'll be surprised how much fact differs from public opinion.
- diggJMiller, on 10/11/2008, -0/+14This merger would take some time to pull off and will do little to help the two in the short run. It has to make sense long term and I'm not convinced this would be the case for both companies.
- ButlerMonkey, on 10/13/2008, -0/+12GM and Chrysler in one - that just scream quality to me. I actually have a feeling GM can make a comeback if the Volt turns out to be a good car and is practical to use for the average person. I think that they can steal sales away hybrid cars, especially if they push a "buy American to help America" type of pitch. If it becomes a successful platform, they can adopt it across their entire line (eventually). GM could go from the brand of the H2 to the most environmentally friendly car brand if they play this right.
Also, being from Toronto and living in a province that does a bit of car production, it seems unions have the car companies by the balls. I'm unaware of any other industry or field (maybe Wall St. CEO) that feels that they need their jobs to be protected or are owed such great compensation if they are to be laid off. - Lionhart, on 10/13/2008, -0/+10most likely would become a brand under General Motors. Kind of like GM has Chevrolet and Pontiac. Now they would also have Chrysler.
That would make the most sense, anyway. - hwy9nightkid, on 10/13/2008, -2/+11GM and Chrysler are barely competitive as is.. are you forgetting all the other car manufacturers?
- OneLess, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8Why is the thumbnail Secretary *****?
- nextbgates95, on 10/13/2008, -5/+13American cars are plenty reliable. My aunt drove a 1980 Dodge RAM until last year. It ran fine, from day one to day 9,855.
I'm glad you decided to say what you thought people wanted to hear. - BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8There is no way this will happen. Cerberus owns 80% of Chrysler, they want GM's 49% share of GMAC (they already own 51% of this finance company) and want to give GM their share in Chrysler for it. GM is trying to sell HUMMER, there's no way they're going to take on a few MORE brands to manage.
- RogerStrong, on 10/13/2008, -1/+9"(W)e do not think it rises to the level of a safety defect"
- Chrysler spokesman Max Gates, December 2004, fighting a threatened recall of 600,000 Dodge Durango and Dakota trucks even though, Gates acknowledged, "upper ball joint separation" might make the trucks' wheels fall off. - xcheats, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8American Motor Co.
- gtluke, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7no, mercedes owned chrysler and sold it to cerebrus
- BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7I think you meant Saab when you wrote Volvo. It's actually Ford who owns the Volvo car trademark (Volvo Group is separate).
- RogerStrong, on 10/13/2008, -2/+9Nope. There'd still be plenty of competition.
Less duplication of effort = better economies of scale = lower prices.
Hopefully. - inactive, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7Less competition = Higher Prices?
hopefully not... - aekdbbop, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7GMrylser? ChryGM? Ehh, well have to see who wins that one..
- Tyr7, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6They look similar because they had the same designer.
- brstilson, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8Decades of putting out substandard quality vehicles are finally coming to fruition. It's not really a surprise. For years they made cars to be replaced every few years, but then the companies putting out reliable cars swooped in and Americans went with the better, foreign product.
- itate, on 10/13/2008, -5/+11GOD NO!!! DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN!!!! I HATE GM!
- chunkymonkey04, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7Consumer Reports is NOT a reliable source. I used to believe that they were....until I noticed the new Toyota Tundra was given a "Recommended" before there was even a year to know this. Yet my new Chevy Avalanche was given a "Not enough to say" rating....that is total ***** that because of the brand they assume its reliability.
In order for there to be a fair test. They should approach each new model with a clean slate.
Ironically, the new Tundra has had many problems in its first year...mostly related to it's weak transmission. The Chevy Tahoe/Avalanche has been one of the most reliable out of Detroit...ever.
I have had 10 or 15 different car brands in my lifetime. I found that each one varies in the amount and type of problems you can have. Ironically, my Dodge Dakota was the most reliable but my Toyota Camry was good, but not great with reliability. - knowitman, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5GM offers and sales more cars that get better than 30 mpg then any other manufacturer.
- wilf_brim, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5Worst....merger......EVER.
Two cripple companies, both making the same mistakes and the with the same problems. Putting them together? Awful idea. At least one of the big three US automakes needs to go, probably two of them. - BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5They could save money by merging the PT cruiser and HHR since they look very similar.
- gtluke, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4would you buy a ford wrangler? heh, they used to build them in the 40's
my jeep is made by AMC, before that they were willy's, and before that ford.
jeep is a whore - czeman, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4It doesn't matter where they're assembled. It matters where the parts are manufactured. My Honda Civic was going strong after 8 years. It would have lasted longer if I wouldn't have seen that damned ghost green arrow and turned. :(
- Tracon, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4So two piles of fail become one massive pile of fail how fun how exciting.
- cubicledrone, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Oh bew hew! Union jobs are the reason we had a middle class in the 1950s and 1960s. Auto makers had no problem paying pensions and benefits until they started making ***** cars THIRTY ***** YEARS AGO.
The reason Toyota is winning the competition for the North American market is they've been thinking long-term since the 1970s. American companies never think long-term. They think about how much cash they can stuff in their ass before lunch. Oh, and there's also the fact that American workers and companies have to compete against unfair trade policies that block our products and undercut our workers.
We can't ***** compete because we suck. The sooner we admit we SUCK the sooner we can stop WHINING and put our people to work COMPETING under a fair trade policy again. - kakwakas, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5Yeah! ***** the little guy!
- waydee, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Merge two inept manufacturers who are unable to compete with the European and Japanese companies to form one super inept manufacturer... sounds like the British car industry in the 70s.
- waynehoggett, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6They will keep the GM and just call them Generic Motors.
- BoneStamp, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4Since America is Canada's largest export destination, Canada will soon follow. If our economy collapses, who do you think is going to buy all your products and resources. The Oil pipeline doesn't lead anywhere else, the roads don't lead anywhere else... most of your products are not cost effective for water export (save steel and a dozen automobiles... all manufactured in Ontario).
- eers2snow, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5Awesome. I'm certain the coming PT Cavalier Cruiser will captivate the market bringing us out of recession!
- dd12101, on 10/13/2008, -3/+6wouldn't it be better business to break them up and auction them off to new thinking entrepreneurs???? Seems like 2 big companies with alot of debt would only equal 1 big company with a whole lot more debt....
- stack3r, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5lol.... this just after Daimler and Chrysler just seperated. Interesting.
Also, anyone else getting sick of hearing "shore up".... ugh. - knowitman, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4I still know many people who have driven the same Dodge, Ford, Chevy pickup truck since the 70s or 80s.
- snoogit, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3you're probably right.
Hate to say it, but GM should be thinking of spinning off car brands, not adding. - cadmiumpaint, on 10/13/2008, -3/+6"Go all-electric, right now."
um not possible at all. - chunkymonkey04, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3I don't disagree with you on that point...but why can they use past performance on a Toyota as an indicator to future reliability on a new model, but will not use past performance of a domestic as an indicator?
- bigbangbuddha, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3This is the kind of monstrosities we have to look forward to now:
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2007/05/vipette-dodge ... - theutopian, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2"GM makes of the worst products on the road"
There, fixed that for you. - cubicledrone, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3This is what happens when you lay off all the people that used to know how to make cars. The answer, of course, is to merge so they can lay off the rest. Oh wait, they already "bought them out" which is corporate-speak for "fired but paid a little extra."
Management, of course, is blameless and continues to enjoy full employment and benefits. That's the ***** "free market" right there.
- OfNumbers, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Things are about to get a whole lot more general.
- theutopian, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2According the news, GM approached Ford first and Ford said ***** off. Can you imagine if Ford and GM were together. Gearheads are loyal to their respective companies like freaking religion. Can you imagine all the heads that would explode of they became GMFord? Same ***** cars, same rabid fanbase.
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2I wonder how much the mortgage crunch triggered GM's decision to merge with Chrysler. This might have more to do with the mortgage crisis than poor car sales.
GM's financing division [GMAC, also known as Ditech] has been very active in the mortgage industry with $150 billion in debt liabilities:
http://thekeithdavisshow.com/25.html - Armagetto, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2...And that would achieve squat to save the company.
The truth is the UAW has little or no power these days. To company outsiders, last summers strikes appeared to be caused by the UAW flexing it's muscle, but in reality all it did is save the company money while allowing it to adjust its inventory. Besides, the Big 3 now have 2 tiered pay scales and even their top-tier jobs are in line with those of the US plants operated by their foreign competitors. What's more is that when the UAW takes over administration of health care in 2010 they will have an edge over the company funded plans of Toyota and the others.
Meanwhile, GM's top CEO's rake in multimillion dollar salaries while Toyotas CEOs only make 6 figures. But really CEOs aren't the issue, nor is the huge amount of white collar fat at the middle, it's mismanagement of the company as a whole. GM made a number of bad bets and business moves, acquiring companies overseas and then selling them at a massive loss. I won't even get into all the suppliers they bailed out... - aelias, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but then those retirees want their money, too, along with all the employees that retired before them. GM, and all other UAW manufacturers will collapse because you can't increase sales forever, and the longer you keep it at bay, the faster it all fails eventually.
- edwarddouglas, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3GM cars may not be great but try to find a good alternative to a Tahoe, Suburban, Escalade. There are none. Just to be fair, Toyota is in almost as bad bad shape themselves having reported a 30% drop in sales for September. As long as the credit market is tight no one will be buying cars because very few can get approved for loans now. Any mass market manufacturer is not gonna be doing well. Mercedes, Bmw, Audi will probably be better off since their customers have on average much higher incomes.
- lotion, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2This rumor has been floating around the auto industry for ages. Time will tell if anything actually happens but I'd have to guess that they don't merge.
As for how this makes sense, it does open up some possibilities. This would afford the merged company the opportunity to pick and choose amongst the variety of technologies and facilities that they, presently, independently own. Additionally, this opens up the chance to share the tooling for parts, reducing costs on future vehicles (commonizing parts along multiple production lines is a frequently used cost-reduction strategy in manufacturing ... For example, the drive shaft in the Ford GT is borrowed from the Focus or the entire reason that SUVs -- Cars on truck chassis -- came into existence).
One larger corporation will have less costs than the two large corps combined (unfortunately at the hands of a reduced workforce, amongst other reasons). This might enable more risk-taking which is the only way for an auto company to get ahead these days. -
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is