GM = Bankrupt

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Perknose
Yeah, I know they still have Volvo, plus their 1/3 investment in Mazda. I have not heard anywhere from a truly informed source that Volvo is really up for sale, do you have a link? Their involvement in Volvo (and Mazda) has been, more or less. a symbiotic success story all around.

Almost all, if not ALL of their small cars use either a Volvo or a Mazda derived platform. Volvo, in turn, has gotten access to engines they would never have had the capital to develop themselves, and Ford's infusion of cash (through a huge stock purchase) into Mazda literally saved that company in the '90's.

AFAIK I know all of Volvos engines are unique to Volvo, and not much more complex than engines from the past. They've also been the only profitable branch of Ford for some time. Frame sharing has helped everyone though.
 

Ktulu

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2000
4,354
0
0
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
because of higher costs for health care, pensions, sales incentives and the higher number of dealerships they support.
There`s a good way to mislead. Mix apples and oranges.

What's misleading about this? It's a fact. :confused:

 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
Ford lost $1,467 per vehicle in 2007, while GM lost $729 and Chrysler lost $412, the report said. Toyota made $922 per vehicle, while Honda and Nissan both made $1,641.

because of higher costs for health care, pensions, sales incentives and the higher number of dealerships they support.

Well then, according to this:
Ford rebates and incentives.
Sales incentives are around $1000. That means that health care and pension costs are less than $500. Thanks for clearing that up!

:)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Not only is Toyota kicking the Domestics ass in sales and profitability, they are kicking their asses in NASCAR. Billy Bob, get yer gun!
 

Ktulu

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2000
4,354
0
0
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
Ford lost $1,467 per vehicle in 2007, while GM lost $729 and Chrysler lost $412, the report said. Toyota made $922 per vehicle, while Honda and Nissan both made $1,641.

because of higher costs for health care, pensions, sales incentives and the higher number of dealerships they support.

Well then, according to this:
Ford rebates and incentives.
Sales incentives are around $1000. That means that health care and pension costs are less than $500. Thanks for clearing that up!

:)

Dude, you're thinking about MSRP. :)
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
Good article about the European Focus, full generation ahead of the American version:
Motor Trend
New Zealand Focus costs $24,000.

Richard Parry-Jones (Ford VP of Global Development at the time) being interviewed in 2005?
How come Ford can't bring the new Focus here--when it is based on the same platform as the Volvo S40 and Mazda 3, which are sold here--and we are left with the old one, soldiering on until late this decade?

"The simple answer is customers in the U.S. won't pay the same money. It's actually driven by a combination of the CAF laws and the low price of fuel in North America. These two things set up a disconnect between what customers want and what companies are required to provide. And we don't have that problem in Europe where fuel is expensive and where there are lots of incentives for customers to buy small, fuel-efficient cars. In Europe, people are actually moving from C/D-class cars to C-class cars because they offer similar amounts of safety, refinement, passenger space, and so on, but cost a lot less to run. If you look at consumer behavior in this sector [in the U.S.], most people are buying on price. We simply don't get rewarded for showing engineering excellence, whereas in Europe, we have to invest more simply to keep up. And Mazda doesn't need to sell a disproportionate amount of 3s because their rest of their fleet is differently mixed to Ford's fleet."

Ha , even though Toyota totally blew his answer out of the water within two years with the Prius, he`ll get a $10 million comp package when he leaves.

:)

 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
Dude, you're thinking about MSRP.
That does bring up a good point.

Who takes the hit on which incentives.

Rebates go direct from Ford to customer (is a rebate still considered personal income?) So I would argue that a rebate affects the factory`s income from the car.

Haggling the price with the dealer affects his built-in profit from the MSRP.

But is Ford selling any of their cars to the dealer (dealer cost) at a loss right out the gate?

:)
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ericlp
Dunno if they will go bankrupt but it serves them right for building gas guzzlers and I believe they a division of the hummer ...

I just kinda hope that Ford and Chevy follow them as they had a lot of time to build a smart car that can get 40+ MPG's. Any company that couldn't see what was going to happen in the past few years deserves what they get.
It has nothing to do with gas guzzlers and everything to do with a union that is bleeding them dry.

I believe that for every car they build they spend $3000 on healthcare costs.

We have had LONG threads about how the people who sweep the floors in their factories make $20 an hour thanks to the union etc.

Yes because American workers should have sub standard 3rd world benefits right.

The problem with American car makers is that the top brass CEO's do not know how to change and adapt to current market conditions. They keep on building the same gas guzzling, expensive crappy cars while the Japanese focus on reliability, affordability and fuel economy in almost all their models.

Yep. The Japanese automakers already proved that US autoworkers, being paid US wages, are the best in the world. The woes at the US automakers have always been management refusing to build to market demands and standards. I was routing for them the past few years, especially the recent turnaround in design quality at GM, but it might end up being too little too late.

they did build to the market demands. people WANTED SUV's so they built them. and what standards did the management not comply with?
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ericlp
Dunno if they will go bankrupt but it serves them right for building gas guzzlers and I believe they a division of the hummer ...

I just kinda hope that Ford and Chevy follow them as they had a lot of time to build a smart car that can get 40+ MPG's. Any company that couldn't see what was going to happen in the past few years deserves what they get.
It has nothing to do with gas guzzlers and everything to do with a union that is bleeding them dry.

I believe that for every car they build they spend $3000 on healthcare costs.

We have had LONG threads about how the people who sweep the floors in their factories make $20 an hour thanks to the union etc.

Yes because American workers should have sub standard 3rd world benefits right.

The problem with American car makers is that the top brass CEO's do not know how to change and adapt to current market conditions. They keep on building the same gas guzzling, expensive crappy cars while the Japanese focus on reliability, affordability and fuel economy in almost all their models.

Yep. The Japanese automakers already proved that US autoworkers, being paid US wages, are the best in the world. The woes at the US automakers have always been management refusing to build to market demands and standards. I was routing for them the past few years, especially the recent turnaround in design quality at GM, but it might end up being too little too late.

they did build to the market demands. people WANTED SUV's so they built them. and what standards did the management not comply with?

People were told they wanted SUV's since they were most profitable on the front end and the backend (financing) through creative psychological marketing . Transformers the Movie was nothing more than a glorified GM commercial used for marketing purposes and they were very blatant about it in their dealer magazine called EDGE.


GM, Ford, and Chrysler are not about needs but wants, unfortunately for them no marketing can overcome lack of money whether it be for the vehicle cost or fuel.

Source for below

The business and, increasingly, the political world uses PR to read and fulfill our desires, to make their products or speeches as pleasing as possible to us. Curtis raises the question of the intentions and roots of this fact. Where once the political process was about engaging people's rational, conscious minds, as well as facilitating their needs as a society, the documentary shows how by employing the tactics of psychoanalysis, politicians appeal to irrational, primitive impulses that have little apparent bearing on issues outside of the narrow self-interest of a consumer population. He cites a Wall Street banker as saying "We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. [...] Man's desires must overshadow his needs."

George Carlin said it best

"people spending money they don't have on things they don't need"








 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Lothar
Jaguars have been lemons for the past 25 years.
...
- or 50 years. An uncle had xke's in the 60s and early 70s - definitely fix or repair daily long before ford ever bought them. I've heard that the reliability has increased somewhat since ford bought them. A boss had one in the 90s - I was always dropping him off or picking him up at the repair shop.

---

Does this thread belong in 'the garage'?
 

Ktulu

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2000
4,354
0
0
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
Dude, you're thinking about MSRP.
That does bring up a good point.

Who takes the hit on which incentives.

Rebates go direct from Ford to customer (is a rebate still considered personal income?) So I would argue that a rebate affects the factory`s income from the car.

Haggling the price with the dealer affects his built-in profit from the MSRP.

But is Ford selling any of their cars to the dealer (dealer cost) at a loss right out the gate?

:)

Excellent point. If anybody knows how this works please chime in.

I would imagine Ford would sell to the dealership at a lesser price to account for the rebate or else the dealership would have no incentive to purchase that particular model at all. But I just don't know.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,447
1,070
126
GM has had the best in class mpg for trucks for a long time, they also have quite a few cars that beat much smaller foreign makes. my 99 olds w/ a v6 gets the same mileage as an accord with a 4cyl and my car has 50 more horses. GM also leads the world in fuel cell research, and has one of the best new concepts in platforms, the volt.

GM also developed the satellite TV industry when they started Direct TV, along with XM radio and the OnStar system. They were once one of the largest defense contractors, General Dynamics. Most of their diverse businesses have been sold to pay for union wages and health care and pensions. There is no way you cant say the Unions have hurt them.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Haha! ^^^^^

I have a 3.8L Buick Rivera ... It gets close to 30MPG's on the highway but sucks in town driving. Uh, I've owned many Toyota / Honda 4cyl, dunno what one your talking about but they get close to 40 on the freeway and low 30's in town.

But my Rivera can't be beat for ride quality / leather seats and super charged for close to 30 MPGS? It's a no brainer IF your looking for luxury cadilac like ride with out the 10 - 15 MPG price tag. The 3.8L isn't a slouch of an engine esp if it's supercharged tho, you put your foot in it and you can watch the gas gauge drop. Anyway I bought the car when gas was cheap and still on OK car to make long trips in since it's decent for Gas Millage.

GM/Ford -> Where are the hybrids that get 50-60MPG? Don't have one? Suck eggs. I'd rather ride my bicycle around town thank ya very much.
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
Most of their diverse businesses have been sold to pay for union wages and health care and pensions. There is no way you cant say the Unions have hurt them.

Before the goalposts start moving, the argument is that it is labor costs that make the Big Three less competitive. Is that correct everyone who has already blamed the unions?

:)

You see where this is going;)
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,447
1,070
126
my 3.8L NA has never gotten below 20 even when its 20 below out and the snow is a foot deep on the roads, best is 32.5 though, usually hovers around 28 to 30 mpg with mixed driving. the accord is rated at 21/31 for a 4cyl auto.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,447
1,070
126
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
Most of their diverse businesses have been sold to pay for union wages and health care and pensions. There is no way you cant say the Unions have hurt them.

Before the goalposts start moving, the argument is that it is labor costs that make the Big Three less competitive. Is that correct everyone who has already blamed the unions?

:)

You see where this is going;)

yea... unions drive up labor cost ... labor cost hurts company... ?
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Zebo In general I think unions are a good thing here because too many think like you whereby there should be wage slaves and capital lords with a tiny middle class snapping the whip as a intermediary between the two.

It's happening right now because of Global Labor Arbitrage and the merging of our labor market with impoverished foreign labor markets.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Yeah, unions have hurt the big three, however they are not the biggest cause of GM's and the other companies' problems.

If GM had designed vehicles that had in the past mirrored the foreign competition in reliability, focused more attention on interior design, and now had a more diverse product lineup they would be better suited to withstand the economic pressures they're under. All of these are independent of the problems the union brings to the table.

The big three have done much to improve reliability with there only being marginal differences between them and foreign competition.

GM has an archaic product lineup that is left over from the days of acquiring independent auto companies (Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, etc.) with so many models being the same car with different badging. The time for this cannibalistic competition between their divisions to stop is overdue.

Having a highly paid workforce is not necessarily a bad thing if you use it to your advantage to attract the best and the brightest, but also the wage structure needs to reflect the skill set demanded for the job. You cannot pay the janitor the same wage as a die maker and at one time their wages were pretty close. All of the big 3 have instituted a tiered wage structure that will eventually will correct this, but it will be years before it comes to fruition.

Note: I am a recent retiree whose retirement is half paid for by GM. I have seen the union mentality that breeds mediocrity, but I have also seen the fear that our jobs are in jeopardy bring a new level of focus of the workforce to do the best at their jobs. I have no doubt that GM can weather this storm if it makes the right moves, whether they will remains in doubt.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
^ GM sells more cars than Toyota and yet Toyota is not going broke, why is that?

Everyone likes to talk about how GM makes lousy cars or trucks etc but they ignore the fact that GM still sells more than anyone else. Which means that GM makes less per car than anyone else which means it is not about the number and types of cars they build, but about the cost of building each car.

Apple sells less than half as many computers and iPods (dollar wise) as Dell and yet they make more money. It is not about how big you are and how many cars/computers you sell. It is about how much you make per unit and on that front GM sucks.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Yet, volume is a great factor in GM's profit structure. Their profit structure is dependent on economies of scale given their fixed labor costs. People are paid even when there is no work.

GM does profit well from their off shore operations and did profit well from the sale of full frame vehicles.

I acknowledge that their labor structure is a hindrance, it won't be easy, but there are still opportunities for them to thrive.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,555
9,907
146
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ GM sells more cars than Toyota and yet Toyota is not going broke, why is that?

Everyone likes to talk about how GM makes lousy cars or trucks etc but they ignore the fact that GM still sells more than anyone else. Which means that GM makes less per car than anyone else which means it is not about the number and types of cars they build, but about the cost of building each car.

Apple sells less than half as many computers and iPods (dollar wise) as Dell and yet they make more money. It is not about how big you are and how many cars/computers you sell. It is about how much you make per unit and on that front GM sucks.

Both GM and Apple make more per unit because they can charge more. They can charge more because each has garnered a loyal following willing to pay a premium due to good experiences with their products.

Legacy union costs do still figure in, PJ, but not nearly as much as you would like to think.

And, last year, PJ, Toyota surpassed GM in worldwide sales for the first time.

Finally, with the gas crisis, it IS about the types of vehicles that GM builds, overall. Nobody but the brain dead would choose a Chevy Cobalt over an equivalent Toyo Corolla or Honda Civic.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ GM sells more cars than Toyota and yet Toyota is not going broke, why is that?

Everyone likes to talk about how GM makes lousy cars or trucks etc but they ignore the fact that GM still sells more than anyone else. Which means that GM makes less per car than anyone else which means it is not about the number and types of cars they build, but about the cost of building each car.

Apple sells less than half as many computers and iPods (dollar wise) as Dell and yet they make more money. It is not about how big you are and how many cars/computers you sell. It is about how much you make per unit and on that front GM sucks.

Both GM and Apple make more per unit because they can charge more. They can charge more because each has garnered a loyal following willing to pay a premium due to good experiences with their products.

Legacy union costs do still figure in, PJ, but not nearly as much as you would like to think.

And, last year, PJ, Toyota surpassed GM in worldwide sales for the first time.

Finally, with the gas crisis, it IS about the types of vehicles that GM builds, overall. Nobody but the brain dead would choose a Chevy Cobalt over an equivalent Toyo Corolla or Honda Civic.

The cobalt still sold 20,000(20% increase in sales) units last month, putting it right behind corolla and civic. If is not a bad car.l
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ GM sells more cars than Toyota and yet Toyota is not going broke, why is that?

Everyone likes to talk about how GM makes lousy cars or trucks etc but they ignore the fact that GM still sells more than anyone else. Which means that GM makes less per car than anyone else which means it is not about the number and types of cars they build, but about the cost of building each car.

Apple sells less than half as many computers and iPods (dollar wise) as Dell and yet they make more money. It is not about how big you are and how many cars/computers you sell. It is about how much you make per unit and on that front GM sucks.

Honestly don't kow that you're talking about. The UAW has taken over the health care/pension themselves, allowed workers to be laid off and new ones hired at $14 hour, yet you don't blame management who has been asleep at the wheel. Anyone with half a brain noticed gas prices increasing since 2000. Instead of bringing new econo cars over here, they wait until they can't sell shit and are almost bankrupt to realize that people aren't buying suvs anymore. You have a lot more in common with the management at these car companies then you do with reality.

 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: ericlp
Dunno if they will go bankrupt but it serves them right for building gas guzzlers and I believe they a division of the hummer ...

I just kinda hope that Ford and Chevy follow them as they had a lot of time to build a smart car that can get 40+ MPG's. Any company that couldn't see what was going to happen in the past few years deserves what they get.


Exactly, they took way too long to jump on the hybrid/alternative fueled vehicle bandwagon. Had they done so ten years ago they would have been the top innovative vehicle manufactures of today. Instead blatant ignorance in the upper echelon of those companies let them stumble and bumble their way to the lower rungs.

If they are to survive then laying off the little guy is the opposite of what needs to be done. Cleaning house from the top down, and replacing all those corporate relics who are still stuck in 25 years ago, and are getting salaries 10x what they actually earn should be what is taking place.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Nobody but the brain dead would choose a Chevy Cobalt over an equivalent Toyo Corolla or Honda Civic.

That's not true at all. With some of the discounts given to suppliers (like myself), getting a MSRP $17,500 Cobalt for $12,500 + ttl (with no dickering involved) = no brainer and the car included remote start, cruise, XM radio, automatic, power windows and quite a few other features. Find me a Civic or Corolla anywhere near that price with those features....and also being NEW.

The savings alone on the car price more than make up for the few extra miles per gallon that the Toyota or Honda get over the Cobalt (which is averaging 31.5 mpg in a combo of 40% city / 60% highway driving so far for me).