Gm and Chrysler looking to MERGE

[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?