Gm and Chrysler looking to MERGE

[HKCharger]

So what would it be alled? Chrygen?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/business/11auto.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[bull]

 

Dodgevy

Cadillysler

Plymuick

Oldsmodge

GMCerberus

Geoeep

Pontimouth

[HKCharger]

G.M. and Chrysler Explore Merger

    * Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
    * Print
    * Reprints
    * Share
          o Linkedin
          o Digg
          o Facebook
          o Mixx
          o Yahoo! Buzz
          o Permalink

Article Tools Sponsored By
By BILL VLASIC and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Published: October 10, 2008

DETROIT — General Motors is in preliminary talks about a possible merger with Chrysler, a deal that could drastically remake the landscape of the auto industry by reducing the Big Three of Detroit automakers to the Big Two.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
David Zalubowski/Associated Press

General Motors and Chrysler are both struggling to sell vehicles as the economy sours.
Related
Times Topics: General Motors Corporation
Times Topics: Chrysler LLC
Add to Portfolio

    * General Motors Corp

Go to your Portfolio »

The talks between G.M. and Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that owns Chrysler, began more than a month ago, and the negotiations are not certain to produce a deal. Two people close to the process said the chances of a merger were "50-50" as of Friday and would most likely still take weeks to work out.

A merger would be a historic event, with two of the most iconic names in American industry coming together to survive in an increasingly difficult environment. Both have roots dating back decades in Detroit and, with Ford, long dominated the auto industry — until Japanese and other foreign car makers began making inroads into the American market.

The auto industry is being pummeled from all sides — by high gas prices that have soured consumers on profitable S.U.V.'s, by a softening economy that has scared shoppers away from showrooms, and by tight credit that is making it difficult for willing buyers to obtain loans. Both G.M. and Chrysler have been struggling with product lineups that are out of sync with consumer demand for smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

General Motors' stock has fallen from more than $43 a share last year to less than $5, and it is burning through its cash hoard at a rapid rate. Chrysler, as a private company, no longer needs to report its finances.

The meetings between General Motors and Cerberus began more than a month ago, said people familiar with the discussions, and the companies have held several talks involving their most senior executives. Given that both G.M. and Chrysler are struggling, the two sides may determine a merger may not be in their best interests.

The exploratory talks have included debates over various calculations of the savings that would result from a merger, these people said, but neither side has yet to dig into each others' private financial books and records.

At the same time, Cerberus is continuing to hold talks with other automakers including Nissan and Renault, said people familiar with the discussions. It is unclear at what stage those discussions have reached.

Speculation about a possible bankruptcy filing by G.M. has mounted in recent weeks because of the automaker's dwindling cash reserves. The automaker had $21 billion in cash on hand at the end of the second quarter, but it was burning through more than $1 billion a month.

The credit rating firm Standard & Poor's put G.M. on negative credit watch on Thursday.

But G.M. has said it is confident that it can increase its liquidity, and emphasized in a statement released Thursday that it was not considering a bankruptcy filing.

G.M. once commanded about 50 percent of the American vehicle market, but its share so far this year has fallen to 22 percent, according to the research firm Autodata. Chrysler had a market share of about 15 percent before its acquisition in 1998 by Daimler, but its share this year has dwindled to 11 percent.

How government and labor might react to a potential merger of G.M. and Chrysler is unclear. Antitrust questions could be raised, but political issues could be overshadowed by the precarious financial prospects of both automakers.

If G.M., the nation's largest automaker, combined operations with Chrysler, the smallest of Detroit's Big Three, they would create an auto giant that would surpass Japan's Toyota Motor Company, which recently has been battling G.M. for bragging rights as the world's largest automaker.

A G.M. spokesman declined to comment on any specific talks with Chrysler. "Without referencing this specific rumor, as we've often said G.M. officials routinely discuss issues of mutual interest with other automakers," said the spokesman, Tony Cervone.

There was no immediate comment from Cerberus.

People briefed on the deal said the talks started as an exploration of possible joint venture opportunities between G.M. and Chrysler.

Cerberus acquired an 80.1 percent stake in Chrysler in August 2007 for $7.4 billion from the German automaker Daimler AG.

Under the terms of the deal being discussed, Cerberus would end up owning an unspecified equity stake in G.M.-Chrysler, people briefed on the talks said.

The ramifications of the merger would be enormous in the global auto industry. G.M. and Chrysler together would control more than 35 percent of the United States vehicle market, and be by far the dominant producer of pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and minivans.

It would also marry such iconic American brands as G.M.'s Chevrolet and Cadillac with Chrysler's Jeep and Dodge divisions.

However, the potential merger carries enormous risks. Both G.M. and Chrysler are struggling mightily in what is the worst market for vehicle sales in the United States in 15 years.

People close to the discussions said that if the prospective deal did not happen, Cerberus would probably look to Nissan and Renault.

But the marriage of G.M. and Chrysler has far more potential than hitching Chrysler to a foreign automaker. While G.M. and Chrysler may be hamstrung by labor contracts from cutting jobs, the two companies could combine dealers, product lines and advanced vehicle technology.

Bill Vlasic reported from Detroit and Andrew Ross Sorkin from New York. Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting.

[mikepmcs]

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,49556.0/topicseen.html

WOW is all I can say.

[70charginglizard]

There goes the neighborhood.

I can see it now.

Introducing the all new Chrysler Camero.

or check out my brand new Chevy Barracuda.

[HKCharger]

If it does happen, wonder what happens to FERD.

[HKCharger]

could this save the two giants? I hope GM goes belly up, they deserve it.

[Brock Samson]

you hope gm goes belly up?.. really?.. 

[HKCharger]

you hope gm goes belly up?.. really?.. 

yes, why does that make you laugh? You a GM nuthugger?

[Brock Samson]

what do you mean by that?. and why start another thread an hour after the original thread?..

[HKCharger]

what do you mean by that?. and why start another thread an hour after the original thread?..

why are you laughing at what i said?

[Troy]

what do you mean by that?. and why start another thread an hour after the original thread?..

why are you laughing at what i said?

Do you realize the impact (to people, cities, the economy, etc.) of GM closing down? Up until this year GM was the largest automobile manufacturer on the planet. He's laughing because it's a silly statement. It's sort of like saying "I wish all Raiders fans would die". It's pretty selfish as well. Brand loyalty is one thing - but I've found that it's rarely logical.

From the merger perspective, if it keeps the companies going, makes them stronger, and creates a better product then that's great. The problem is going to be getting the deal approved and, with the crazy stock market right now, a deal that both sides will be happy with. Either way, there will likely be massive cuts in production (car sales have tanked) and I'd rather see one company consolidate factories than two companies working skeleton crews and bleeding money.

By the way, I just bought a Chevy Tahoe because my experiences recently with Chrysler (specifically my Ram) have been so incredibly bad - and it's a better vehicle to boot. You guys will surely be happy to know that the last Toyota in my fleet is up for sale (but I'll probably buy a Mustang with the money).

Troy

[HKCharger]

what do you mean by that?. and why start another thread an hour after the original thread?..

why are you laughing at what i said?

Do you realize the impact (to people, cities, the economy, etc.) of GM closing down? Up until this year GM was the largest automobile manufacturer on the planet. He's laughing because it's a silly statement. It's sort of like saying "I wish all Raiders fans would die". It's pretty selfish as well. Brand loyalty is one thing - but I've found that it's rarely logical.

From the merger perspective, if it keeps the companies going, makes them stronger, and creates a better product then that's great. The problem is going to be getting the deal approved and, with the crazy stock market right now, a deal that both sides will be happy with. Either way, there will likely be massive cuts in production (car sales have tanked) and I'd rather see one company consolidate factories than two companies working skeleton crews and bleeding money.

By the way, I just bought a Chevy Tahoe because my experiences recently with Chrysler (specifically my Ram) have been so incredibly bad - and it's a better vehicle to boot. You guys will surely be happy to know that the last Toyota in my fleet is up for sale (but I'll probably buy a Mustang with the money).

Troy

Yes I do, and they NEED to FAIL. They are a horrible business plan and the government keeps pumping our TAX DOLLARS into a sinking ship/horrid business model and it's doing us NO GOOD. You and I wouldnt get bailed out if we had a small business with a bad business plan and GM needs to either get their crap together or go under.

[Neal_J]

I'd say it a bit differently - both companies are on very shakey ground.   Yes, they employ thousands but no company can sustain massive erosion of their revenues, particularly one with huge fixed costs.

So, from a business perspective, combining two turds gets you what? 

Neal

[Kevin68N71]

Troy, you are absolutely right.

Remember the yahoos that said that Chrysler never should have been bailed out in the firstplace, and all the "tax dollars out of our pockets" that went to save them?

Well, people don't seem to remember that NO TAX DOLLARS were wasted when Chrysler was bailed out, it was Government backed LOANS, not taxpayer subsidies, that were granted, which Chrysler paid back EARLY with interest.

This moves saved tens of thousands of jobs, created the minivan market, and served millions of consumers.

Sorry HK, your comparison of a personal small business to one of America's largest corporation is not a very good one.  Remember, GM is intewoven with hundreds of other companies, and other companies provide tremendous support services to them.  There is tons of international revenue as well.

Let's see, the GOVERNMENT demands increasing fuel efficiency, which costs tremendous amounts of money, unions require idiotic benefits, retirees expect a salary until they are dead, and on and on.  Add into this an automotive press that has always hated domestic product, and a fuel crunch that favored imports.  But for all these reasons, GM should just go away.  Yeah, that's great thinking.

Let me guess, you had a 1982 Nova that got a flat tire, and you're still pissed off at GM about it.

[The70RT]

Troy - What happened with the Toyota? 

[HKCharger]

Troy, you are absolutely right.

Remember the yahoos that said that Chrysler never should have been bailed out in the firstplace, and all the "tax dollars out of our pockets" that went to save them?

Well, people don't seem to remember that NO TAX DOLLARS were wasted when Chrysler was bailed out, it was Government backed LOANS, not taxpayer subsidies, that were granted, which Chrysler paid back EARLY with interest.

This moves saved tens of thousands of jobs, created the minivan market, and served millions of consumers.

Sorry HK, your comparison of a personal small business to one of America's largest corporation is not a very good one.  Remember, GM is intewoven with hundreds of other companies, and other companies provide tremendous support services to them.  There is tons of international revenue as well.

Let's see, the GOVERNMENT demands increasing fuel efficiency, which costs tremendous amounts of money, unions require idiotic benefits, retirees expect a salary until they are dead, and on and on.  Add into this an automotive press that has always hated domestic product, and a fuel crunch that favored imports.  But for all these reasons, GM should just go away.  Yeah, that's great thinking.

Let me guess, you had a 1982 Nova that got a flat tire, and you're still pissed off at GM about it.

Oh so let me guess, you were in support of the massive 700 billion dollar bailout plan the govt just passed?

[Ghoste]

Well, people don't seem to remember that NO TAX DOLLARS were wasted when Chrysler was bailed out, it was Government backed LOANS, not taxpayer subsidies, that were granted, which Chrysler paid back EARLY with interest.

And to make it even clearer, this means that Chrysler was still borrowing the money from lending institutions, the feds were only promising to pay the debt if Chrysler defaulted.  Like being a co-signer for a fee.  If you think the economy is in the toilet now from the hit the mortgage companies took then you beter believe killing off GM would be the last nail in the economic coffin.

[HKCharger]

Troy, you are absolutely right.

Remember the yahoos that said that Chrysler never should have been bailed out in the firstplace, and all the "tax dollars out of our pockets" that went to save them?

Well, people don't seem to remember that NO TAX DOLLARS were wasted when Chrysler was bailed out, it was Government backed LOANS, not taxpayer subsidies, that were granted, which Chrysler paid back EARLY with interest.

This moves saved tens of thousands of jobs, created the minivan market, and served millions of consumers.

Sorry HK, your comparison of a personal small business to one of America's largest corporation is not a very good one.  Remember, GM is intewoven with hundreds of other companies, and other companies provide tremendous support services to them.  There is tons of international revenue as well.

Let's see, the GOVERNMENT demands increasing fuel efficiency, which costs tremendous amounts of money, unions require idiotic benefits, retirees expect a salary until they are dead, and on and on.  Add into this an automotive press that has always hated domestic product, and a fuel crunch that favored imports.  But for all these reasons, GM should just go away.  Yeah, that's great thinking.

Let me guess, you had a 1982 Nova that got a flat tire, and you're still pissed off at GM about it.

Chrysler is paying those govt loans back in the truest form of bankruptcy, look at the details of their renegotiated loans. They are paying 30 cents on the dollar back, not dollar for dollar.

[Mike DC]

They're insane. 


Seriously, this sounds like something that the Bush administration would have come up with.  One of these Perfect-Storm bad ideas . . . you just can't help but marvel at it.

[Troy]

Troy, you are absolutely right.

Remember the yahoos that said that Chrysler never should have been bailed out in the firstplace, and all the "tax dollars out of our pockets" that went to save them?

Well, people don't seem to remember that NO TAX DOLLARS were wasted when Chrysler was bailed out, it was Government backed LOANS, not taxpayer subsidies, that were granted, which Chrysler paid back EARLY with interest.

This moves saved tens of thousands of jobs, created the minivan market, and served millions of consumers.

Sorry HK, your comparison of a personal small business to one of America's largest corporation is not a very good one.  Remember, GM is intewoven with hundreds of other companies, and other companies provide tremendous support services to them.  There is tons of international revenue as well.

Let's see, the GOVERNMENT demands increasing fuel efficiency, which costs tremendous amounts of money, unions require idiotic benefits, retirees expect a salary until they are dead, and on and on.  Add into this an automotive press that has always hated domestic product, and a fuel crunch that favored imports.  But for all these reasons, GM should just go away.  Yeah, that's great thinking.

Let me guess, you had a 1982 Nova that got a flat tire, and you're still pissed off at GM about it.

Oh so let me guess, you were in support of the massive 700 billion dollar bailout plan the govt just passed?

Who is bailing out GM? You have me confused. I believe businesses should be responsible for themselves and if they screw it up then they need to face the consequences. This particular merger is a way to strengthen both companies (presumably) without having to rely on the government (taxpayers). There are millions of small businesses with horrible business models. Those businesses don't grow to the size of GM. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Troy - What happened with the Toyota? 

Nothing - it's just too small to tow a trailer (Tacoma) and now that I have another vehicle to drive every day that is also capable of towing then I really don't need it. The Ram is for sale also (for the opposite reason - it's too big to drive every day and it mostly sits in the driveway).

Troy

[Kevin68N71]

Uh, yes, I am for the government involvement in straightening out the financial mess.  No one else could.  By the way, the government, not wall street, created that mess my insisting that loan institutions make up to 50% of their portfolios comprised of lousy loans to losers that weren't going to pay them.  Barney Frank and team should be run out of town on a rail.  ACORN is such scum that they are even now being shown as involved with voter fraud.  And so, yeah, the government should help and do all it can to prevent a total meltdown, a problem that they created.

What is your brainiac idea?  Let em all fail?  Let all the homes go in foreclosure, ruin more banks, put more insurance companies at risk and forcing them to fold, watch YOUR home price go down to nothing, watch business after business fail because there are no longer credit lines available, and watch retail prices zoom skyward because of limited supplies of everything.  Followed shortly by the worst recession imaginable and maybe even a depression.

Yeah, smart, let's put your business plan in action.

[HKCharger]

Troy, you are absolutely right.

Remember the yahoos that said that Chrysler never should have been bailed out in the firstplace, and all the "tax dollars out of our pockets" that went to save them?

Well, people don't seem to remember that NO TAX DOLLARS were wasted when Chrysler was bailed out, it was Government backed LOANS, not taxpayer subsidies, that were granted, which Chrysler paid back EARLY with interest.

This moves saved tens of thousands of jobs, created the minivan market, and served millions of consumers.

Sorry HK, your comparison of a personal small business to one of America's largest corporation is not a very good one.  Remember, GM is intewoven with hundreds of other companies, and other companies provide tremendous support services to them.  There is tons of international revenue as well.

Let's see, the GOVERNMENT demands increasing fuel efficiency, which costs tremendous amounts of money, unions require idiotic benefits, retirees expect a salary until they are dead, and on and on.  Add into this an automotive press that has always hated domestic product, and a fuel crunch that favored imports.  But for all these reasons, GM should just go away.  Yeah, that's great thinking.

Let me guess, you had a 1982 Nova that got a flat tire, and you're still pissed off at GM about it.

Oh so let me guess, you were in support of the massive 700 billion dollar bailout plan the govt just passed?

Who is bailing out GM? You have me confused. I believe businesses should be responsible for themselves and if they screw it up then they need to face the consequences. This particular merger is a way to strengthen both companies (presumably) without having to rely on the government (taxpayers). There are millions of small businesses with horrible business models. Those businesses don't grow to the size of GM. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Troy - What happened with the Toyota? 

Nothing - it's just too small to tow a trailer (Tacoma) and now that I have another vehicle to drive every day that is also capable of towing then I really don't need it. The Ram is for sale also (for the opposite reason - it's too big to drive every day and it mostly sits in the driveway).

Troy

Who do you think will be on the hook to pay for those loans if they default on those loans as they appear they will?

[Brock Samson]

what do you mean by that?. and why start another thread an hour after the original thread?..

why are you laughing at what i said?

Do you realize the impact (to people, cities, the economy, etc.) of GM closing down? Up until this year GM was the largest automobile manufacturer on the planet. He's laughing because it's a silly statement. It's sort of like saying "I wish all Raiders fans would die". It's pretty selfish as well. Brand loyalty is one thing - but I've found that it's rarely logical.

Troy

  as usual Troy nails it.

[Troy]

Troy, you are absolutely right.

Remember the yahoos that said that Chrysler never should have been bailed out in the firstplace, and all the "tax dollars out of our pockets" that went to save them?

Well, people don't seem to remember that NO TAX DOLLARS were wasted when Chrysler was bailed out, it was Government backed LOANS, not taxpayer subsidies, that were granted, which Chrysler paid back EARLY with interest.

This moves saved tens of thousands of jobs, created the minivan market, and served millions of consumers.

Sorry HK, your comparison of a personal small business to one of America's largest corporation is not a very good one.  Remember, GM is intewoven with hundreds of other companies, and other companies provide tremendous support services to them.  There is tons of international revenue as well.

Let's see, the GOVERNMENT demands increasing fuel efficiency, which costs tremendous amounts of money, unions require idiotic benefits, retirees expect a salary until they are dead, and on and on.  Add into this an automotive press that has always hated domestic product, and a fuel crunch that favored imports.  But for all these reasons, GM should just go away.  Yeah, that's great thinking.

Let me guess, you had a 1982 Nova that got a flat tire, and you're still pissed off at GM about it.

Oh so let me guess, you were in support of the massive 700 billion dollar bailout plan the govt just passed?

Who is bailing out GM? You have me confused. I believe businesses should be responsible for themselves and if they screw it up then they need to face the consequences. This particular merger is a way to strengthen both companies (presumably) without having to rely on the government (taxpayers). There are millions of small businesses with horrible business models. Those businesses don't grow to the size of GM. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Troy - What happened with the Toyota? 

Nothing - it's just too small to tow a trailer (Tacoma) and now that I have another vehicle to drive every day that is also capable of towing then I really don't need it. The Ram is for sale also (for the opposite reason - it's too big to drive every day and it mostly sits in the driveway).

Troy

Who do you think will be on the hook to pay for those loans if they default on those loans as they appear they will?

You're the one saying they should go "belly up". I said they should merge if it helps the companies stay in business. If they both stay in business your point is moot.

Troy

[Charger-Bodie]

Just an FYI : Automakers have been merging in this Country for as long as there has been automobiles.....Even Chrysler Dodge and Plymouth were thier own respective company at one time.

If it saves both companies I dont see a problem. 

And as far as all the Dodge Camaro ....etc comments, do you really think they would cross breed the names of iconic cars? 

[Ghoste]

Well, technically Plymouth was a division started by Chrysler but yeah, you`re right about the others.

[68charger383]

I think the merger is bad based on the loss of competition (cheaper prices) and having two sets of developers designing and improving their designs and striving to make a better product. In addition, I'm slightly biased to Chrysler since I really believe they have always strayed from the norm and made unique and risky car designs, so a merger would probably pull this out of the market.

On the flip side: as stated the merger is just not saving the headlined companies: the companies buy parts from many numerous companies all around the country/world...the auto workers buy food, flowers, dry cleaning etc..  and the workers buy from stores in their local communities and the stores buy inventory and supplies and machines from other companies...which companies buy supplies and machines etc from other companies whose workers buy food, flowers, dry cleaning etc. from stores etc. etc. etc...the buyers of the autos made create sales, service, banking jobs etc, etc

The effect of these factories/workers going out will hit everyone/everywhere in some way.

[Ghoste]

I wouldn't worry much about competition, the Asians are giving them plenty.

[69_500]

Thinking back, AMC and Jeep were their own different brands until they themselves merged with Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth back in the late 70's. Dodge was its own independent company until it merged with Chrysler (actually was bought out by them if I'm not mistaken)

Many companies merge, and still retain their own distinct lineage of products. Personally I am hoping they don't, but if that is the only way they both can continue to prosper then I see nothing wrong with it. If they both went belly up, then there would be a huge impact on our global economy.

[Sabre]

I actually hope they do merge as I am a fan of both Chrysler and GM.

[ACUDANUT]

what do you mean by that?. and why start another thread an hour after the original thread?..

why are you laughing at what i said?

Do you realize the impact (to people, cities, the economy, etc.) of GM closing down? Up until this year GM was the largest automobile manufacturer on the planet. He's laughing because it's a silly statement. It's sort of like saying "I wish all Raiders fans would die". It's pretty selfish as well. Brand loyalty is one thing - but I've found that it's rarely logical.

From the merger perspective, if it keeps the companies going, makes them stronger, and creates a better product then that's great. The problem is going to be getting the deal approved and, with the crazy stock market right now, a deal that both sides will be happy with. Either way, there will likely be massive cuts in production (car sales have tanked) and I'd rather see one company consolidate factories than two companies working skeleton crews and bleeding money.

By the way, I just bought a Chevy Tahoe because my experiences recently with Chrysler (specifically my Ram) have been so incredibly bad - and it's a better vehicle to boot. You guys will surely be happy to know that the last Toyota in my fleet is up for sale (but I'll probably buy a Mustang with the money).

Troy

***Troy:  I could not agree more with you.  I have gone GM because of my bad experience with the new Dodge.  When I was driving my newer Ram, I caught myself holding my breath and praying it would not have to go back to the shop everytime I got in it.  Every week I had a new problem.
NOT so with GM.
***On the flip side, I would consider the new Challenger.  (If I had the money and it was fully covered maint. plan)

[Big Lebowski]

     Cool. The 2010 GM Chevy Charger is coming!

  Some folks aren't getting this economy thing. This is the Waltons all over again. The 30's depression led to things like... catch your dinner, mill your own timber, raise your own fried chickens, make shine and work any job, anywhere, anytime. Of course that's easy for me to say since I live in the mountains.

   Who's to blame? All of them from W. to Paulson to Barney Frank & Chris Dodd to Wall Street & all of the Acorn folks who forced loans to be given to people who can't even pay them back.

[rav440]

There goes the neighborhood.

I can see it now.

Introducing the all new Chrysler Camero.

or check out my brand new Chevy Barracuda.

i thought there were 2 E's in camaro ?      

[squeakfinder]

People are hurting, I've noticed at work when purchasing parts, some prices seem way to high compared to another supplier. 

[1969chargerrtse]

  To all you negative GM people.  GM has and makes great quality cars.    I love my Charger, but I loved my Camaro's Chevelles and GTO's from my past.    Oh yea, and a vette. 

[Kevin68N71]

As I have mentioned before, if you want to has some sort of brand loyalty that causes you to discount all the other great cars out there, that's your deal.  While I prefer Mopars for a number of reasons, I have a Corvette and an AMX too, as well as some other selections.  Why deprive yourself of variety if you don't have to?  I never understood the whole Ford Vs. Chevy thing either.  Everyone has made great engines and cool cars.

The fact of the matter is, in the musclecar days, with just a few exceptions, almost ALL these cars were running 14s through 15s stock, a few 13s.  Look at all the old road tests.  0-60 was 5 to 7 seconds for the most part.  Now when you modified them, all bets were off and we all know that the Hemi was the king of go fast customizations.  But to flat out say one company sucks is beyond me.  I have a problem understanding why a 428 Cobra Jet Mach 1, or a LS-6 454 (or even an LS-5) are crummy cars, to cite two examples of many.

Further, there are GREAT cars made today.  Corvette, Saturn Sky Red Line, Pontiac Solstice, the new G8, the Mustang, the Challenger.  Being dismissive of a brand can get a bit irritating.

[The70RT]

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Bring Ford in too. Most car guys pretty much like all sorts of classic & vintage cars. Our grand kids or great grand kids will probably eventually see one company for each type of buissiness.

General Chrysler Motors
Napaquest
White Peter Liner
Mobil Exxon
Valpenns Oil
Gieco
Wallmart
Lowes Depot
Good Year
USA Gas & Power
Proctor & Gambel
Coca-Pepsi Cola
Bud Miller
UPS-EX

[69 OUR/TEA]

As I have mentioned before, if you want to has some sort of brand loyalty that causes you to discount all the other great cars out there, that's your deal.  While I prefer Mopars for a number of reasons, I have a Corvette and an AMX too, as well as some other selections.  Why deprive yourself of variety if you don't have to?  I never understood the whole Ford Vs. Chevy thing either.  Everyone has made great engines and cool cars.

The fact of the matter is, in the musclecar days, with just a few exceptions, almost ALL these cars were running 14s through 15s stock, a few 13s.  Look at all the old road tests.  0-60 was 5 to 7 seconds for the most part.  Now when you modified them, all bets were off and we all know that the Hemi was the king of go fast customizations.  But to flat out say one company sucks is beyond me.  I have a problem understanding why a 428 Cobra Jet Mach 1, or a LS-6 454 (or even an LS-5) are crummy cars, to cite two examples of many.

Further, there are GREAT cars made today.  Corvette, Saturn Sky Red Line, Pontiac Solstice, the new G8, the Mustang, the Challenger.  Being dismissive of a brand can get a bit irritating.
     
  I agree!!!!

[Mike DC]

I think it's oversimplifying to just say the '82 loan/bailout saved a ton of jobs and that equals good. 


If Mopar had folded in '82, then a huge portion of that business would have gone to GM and Ford, making them healthier.  A healthier GM and Ford would not have been driven to as much/early outsourcing and slashing the workforce as they (and the surviving Mopar) have actually had to do in the last couple decades. Not to mention the fact that more brands forces them all to concentrate harder on each of their most profitable vehicles at the expense of anything else.

I question how much different the TOTAL economic effect would have been in Detroit's long run if they had just let Mopar go under. 

[Steve P.]

So do you think AMC will go back to using GM distributors??   

[Ghoste]

Again, it wasn`t a loan or a bailout, it was co-signing but semantics aside, the `call it what you will`for Chrysler in 82 didn`t equal bad either and I seriously doubt Chrysler going under would have stemmed much of the outsourcing.  The whole `decontenting`of vehicles and modular assembly can be more directly attributed to the Japanese `kaizan` methods of manufacturing than it can to excessive competition among the American automakers.   

[Kevin68N71]

Mike you and I already had this argument a few months ago.  There is nothing to say that if Chrysler had died that buyers would have stayed domestic.  There is nothing to say that the OEMs that Chrysler used would have been taken in by GM and Ford.  Many supporting businesses would have been lost for no other reason than simple logistics, and the factory workers would have been fired, along with all their managers and other personnel.  Your assertion of the  is about as valid as me saying that GM and Ford would have LOST clients because Americans would have lost confidence in the viability of American cars and switched to imports.  Hell, the imports have had the press on their side anyway even back then--it isn't a stretch to consider.  Look how many people STILL believe a Toyota is far better than a Buick.  Oh well.  Remember this, competition is what KEEPS the value high and costs low among car makers, not removing competition.

Exactly, how did the bailout hurt you?  Never got that, didn't cost you a freaking dime.  Let's see, if YOU had worked for a company in a factory for years, and there was an option for you to save you and your family's jobs and make products the country wanted, without impacting the taxpayer (Not to mention retaining a tax base for cities), would you have said, no, screw it, let my company die!  The competitors will benefit!   I suppose not, because it would have been YOU.     

[WingCharger]

 

What would happen to MoPar, and GM Performance?!!!!!!!??
GMoPar???

[Steve P.]

                                   "GOPAR"

[WingCharger]

                                   "GOPAR"

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.......... 

[Charger1973]

They already merged in my driveway years ago.  Chevy trucks and Mopar muscle cars.   I love my '02 Tahoe.   

[Steve P.]

This might just be a good thing for those of us with bad backs.. GM has a MUCH more comfortable bucket seat.  This is the ONLY reason I don't drive a DODGE truck.... 


I feel my diesel calling my name....

[1969chargerrtse]

                                   "GOPAR"

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.......... 

  That's a good one.

[Mike DC]

 
Chill out Kevin.  I didn't say I ever wanted  Mopar to go under, I said I question the true wisdom and result of the loan.

I think a privately-raised loan might have been a better idea.  If they couldn't raise the loan privately then you have to question the wisdom of the loan.  (And the fact that they DID pay it back pretty effectively later, does not mean it was automatically a wise decision to have been made at the time the govt did it.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So a bunch of people that you (and I) personally know kept their jobs as a result of that loan in 1982.  Is that the way to gauge whether it was a good idea in the long run?   Is that how we're gonna evaluate this stuff in general?