Good GM/Bad GM

Recent Obama Administration statements indicate a willingness to try to
save some of GM, but not all of it, an obvious solution for a company so
buried in debt, bad products, obsolete factories, and legacy costs that aid
for the whole would mean subsidies to the end of time. The bad parts would
be liquidated; the good parts would be helped. But that raises the
question of how to tell the good from the bad, or, perhaps more accurately,
the really bad from the not quite so bad.

Saturn is an obvious liquidation target. The brand has lost money every
year it has existed. Its original business model - creating a car unique
in content - was doomed from the beginning, as the importance of parts
commonality was recognized by American manufacturers in the 20s and by
Asian manufacturers in the 70s. It could be speculated that Saturn was,
philosophically, a British project as they never learned this lesson, even
to the point that during British Leyland's last gasp in the 80s, Jaguars,
Rovers, Triumphs, and MGs used different shades of white paint.

Clearly Hummer has most of the same problems as Saturn. While some may
want to retain Hummer due to its military applications, high volume sales
to the military would require a need to replace current equipment. And
that would occur only if existing equipment were destroyed in constant,
long term, no victory in sight wars, something President Obama, unlike his
predecessor, seems interested in avoiding.

Pontiac and Buick are obviously finished. Once having sufficient volume to
support single marque dealerships, GM forced its Buick and Pontiac dealers
to consolidate and, even then, volume was so insufficient it threw GMC into
the mix.

That leaves Chevrolet and Cadillac as the "least bad". Can they survive?

Interestingly, both are highly truck oriented brands, and, despite obvious
consumer preferences, some members of Congress think GM's problems are due
to building trucks. Of course, letting Chevrolet and Cadillac continue to
build what they know how to build would put them at risk for non compliance
with CAFE. It would take a nearly unprecedented case of logical thinking
on the part of Congress to realize Chevrolet and Cadillac only have a
chance to survive it they do what they're better at, building trucks and
large cars, and that market manipulation is generally a bad idea.

So what is to become of the "Bad GM"? Brands that don't sell are worth
nothing. Plants and equipment for an industry that has twice the capacity
it needs are essentially scrap. The creditors may find that selling the
remnants costs more than can be recovered.

That being the case, the "Good GM" should keep everything required to
produce trucks and large cars, rights to parts for discontinued brands
(Chevrolet and Cadillac can offer parts and service for all models built in
the last few years) and all trademarks. That way, the "Good GM" can almost
break even for a few years, until Toyota and Nissan learn how to build
large pickups that do more than feed the owner's ego while he load the bed
with bags of groceries.

Then after liquidating Chevrolet and Cadillac, the "Good GM" can become a
one employee company selling GTO and Camaro T Shirts on Cafe Press. Rick
Waggoner, don't cancel your internet service just yet. There's a future
work from home job for you at the new "Good GM".

> >
> Saturn is an obvious liquidation target. The brand has lost money every
> year it has existed. Its original business model - creating a car unique
> in content - was doomed from the beginning, as the importance of parts
> commonality was recognized by American manufacturers in the 20s and by
> Asian manufacturers in the 70s. It could be speculated that Saturn was,
> philosophically, a British project as they never learned this lesson, even
> to the point that during British Leyland's last gasp in the 80s, Jaguars,
> Rovers, Triumphs, and MGs used different shades of white paint.
>

Well...Saturn had four-valve heads and overhead cams before it was common on
other GM cars. But Saturn just did not have the style or prestige of
something like the current Infiniti G35 sedan. And the current Saturn is the
same car as a Ponitac G6 or the same as a Chevrolet Malibu. (Now the Saturn
Aura and the Pontiac G6 can have the same port-fuel-injection engine as the
Cadillac CTS.)

But the death of the British sports cars in the 1970's ?
The British cars did not go to electronic fuel injection like the German
cars did. So with new pollution control requirements the British cars got
poor fuel mileage and poor performance.

And the American car makers did not even notice the problem of lacking
electronic fuel injection and they continued on without it...

And currently the German car makers have turbo-diesels while GM has
literally scoffed...

> Clearly Hummer has most of the same problems as Saturn. While some may
> want to retain Hummer due to its military applications, high volume sales
> to the military would require a need to replace current equipment. And
> that would occur only if existing equipment were destroyed in constant,
> long term, no victory in sight wars, something President Obama, unlike his
> predecessor, seems interested in avoiding.
>

If a military Hummer will not stand up to road-side bombs then the military
might as well use crew-cab pickup trucks and save money...

> Pontiac and Buick are obviously finished. Once having sufficient volume
> to
> support single marque dealerships, GM forced its Buick and Pontiac dealers
> to consolidate and, even then, volume was so insufficient it threw GMC
> into
> the mix.
>

Without Pontiac GM becomes a Rambler dealer. Pontiac has the G8 which is the
same as the Cadillac CTS, Pontiac has the Solstice which is a heavier car
than the Mazda MX-5, Pontiac has the obsolete Grand Prix but which is more
appealing than the Chevrolet Impala, and Pontiac has the G6 GXP with the
same port-injection engine as the Cadillac CTS.

On 18 Apr, 18:25, Comments4u
> wrote:
> Recent Obama Administration statements indicate a willingness to try to
> save some of GM, but not all of it, an obvious solution for a company so
> buried in debt, bad products, obsolete factories, and legacy costs that aid
> for the whole would mean subsidies to the end of time. *The bad parts would
> be liquidated; the good parts would be helped. *But that raises the
> question of how to tell the good from the bad, or, perhaps more accurately,
> the really bad from the not quite so bad.
>
> Saturn is an obvious liquidation target. *The brand has lost money every
> year it has existed. *Its original business model - creating a car unique
> in content - was doomed from the beginning, as the importance of parts
> commonality was recognized by American manufacturers in the 20s and by
> Asian manufacturers in the 70s. *It could be speculated that Saturn was,
> philosophically, a British project as they never learned this lesson, even
> to the point that during British Leyland's last gasp in the 80s, Jaguars,
> Rovers, Triumphs, and MGs used different shades of white paint.
>
> Clearly Hummer has most of the same problems as Saturn. *While some may
> want to retain Hummer due to its military applications, high volume sales
> to the military would require a need to replace current equipment. *And
> that would occur only if existing equipment were destroyed in constant,
> long term, no victory in sight wars, something President Obama, unlike his
> predecessor, seems interested in avoiding.
>
> Pontiac and Buick are obviously finished. *Once having sufficient volume to
> support single marque dealerships, GM forced its Buick and Pontiac dealers
> to consolidate and, even then, volume was so insufficient it threw GMC into
> the mix.
>
> That leaves Chevrolet and Cadillac as the "least bad". *Can they survive?
>
> Interestingly, both are highly truck oriented brands, and, despite obvious
> consumer preferences, some members of Congress think GM's problems are due
> to building trucks. *Of course, letting Chevrolet and Cadillac continue to
> build what they know how to build would put them at risk for non compliance
> with CAFE. *It would take a nearly unprecedented case of logical thinking
> on the part of Congress to realize Chevrolet and Cadillac only have a
> chance to survive it they do what they're better at, building trucks and
> large cars, and that market manipulation is generally a bad idea.
>
> So what is to become of the "Bad GM"? *Brands that don't sell are worth
> nothing. *Plants and equipment for an industry that has twice the capacity
> it needs are essentially scrap. *The creditors may find that selling the
> remnants costs more than can be recovered.
>
> That being the case, the "Good GM" should keep everything required to
> produce trucks and large cars, rights to parts for discontinued brands
> (Chevrolet and Cadillac can offer parts and service for all models built in
> the last few years) and all trademarks. *That way, the "Good GM" can almost
> break even for a few years, until Toyota and Nissan learn how to build
> large pickups that do more than feed the owner's ego while he load the bed
> with bags of groceries.
>
> Then after liquidating Chevrolet and Cadillac, the "Good GM" can become a
> one employee company selling GTO and Camaro T Shirts on Cafe Press. *Rick
> Waggoner, don't cancel your internet service just yet. *There's a future
> work from home job for you at the new "Good GM".

Good GM is probably the part that is outside US.

Probably best to close all the US operations and let new companies
start a fresh with new management around some brands and factories.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:18:19 -0400, "R Mach" >
wrote:

>And currently the German car makers have turbo-diesels while GM has
>literally scoffed...

GM USA?

GM Europe
http://www.worldcarfans.com/2040414....ine-technology

What's being delivered.
http://www.saab.co.uk/gb/en/start#/w...carrousel:all/

Sorry if 180bhp from a 1.9L 4 pot just isn't enough to meet your
requirements.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

It seems pretty simple to me.

Sell Chevy trucks, Malibus, and a compact. Corvettes. Cadillacs.

Drop Pontiac, Saturn, Buick, and GMC.

Go bankrupt and either break or renegotiate with the Union so that their
wages are the same as Toyotas.

And renogiate the retirement plan.

Simple! And it'll only cost billions of dollars of attorney time.

Ed

>
>>And currently the German car makers have turbo-diesels while GM has
>>literally scoffed...
>
> GM USA?
>
> GM Europe
> http://www.worldcarfans.com/2040414....ine-technology
>
> What's being delivered.
> http://www.saab.co.uk/gb/en/start#/w...carrousel:all/
>
> Sorry if 180bhp from a 1.9L 4 pot just isn't enough to meet your
> requirements.

The CEO of GM scoffed at turbo-diesels for the American market...

>>>And currently the German car makers have turbo-diesels while GM has
>>>literally scoffed...
>>
>> GM USA?
>>
>> GM Europe
>> http://www.worldcarfans.com/2040414....ine-technology
>>
>> What's being delivered.
>> http://www.saab.co.uk/gb/en/start#/w...carrousel:all/
>>
>> Sorry if 180bhp from a 1.9L 4 pot just isn't enough to meet your
>> requirements.
>
> The CEO of GM scoffed at turbo-diesels for the American market...

And the GM 2.0 gasoline turbocharged engine is a little goofy in that it has
up to 20 psi of boost for 260 horsepower. Meanwhile VW holds the line for
the 2.0 gasoline turbocharged engine at a more trustworthy 200 horsepower...

But to continue on this branch subject...Ford has a twin-turbo gasoline V-6
on the way. And that's not sequential turbos but a turbo for each bank of
cyliners...

>>>>And currently the German car makers have turbo-diesels while GM has
>>>>literally scoffed...
>>>
>>> GM USA?
>>>
>>> GM Europe
>>> http://www.worldcarfans.com/2040414....ine-technology
>>>
>>> What's being delivered.
>>> http://www.saab.co.uk/gb/en/start#/w...carrousel:all/
>>>
>>> Sorry if 180bhp from a 1.9L 4 pot just isn't enough to meet your
>>> requirements.
>>
>> The CEO of GM scoffed at turbo-diesels for the American market...
>
> And the GM 2.0 gasoline turbocharged engine is a little goofy in that it
> has up to 20 psi of boost for 260 horsepower. Meanwhile VW holds the line
> for the 2.0 gasoline turbocharged engine at a more trustworthy 200
> horsepower...
>
> But to continue on this branch subject...Ford has a twin-turbo gasoline
> V-6 on the way. And that's not sequential turbos but a turbo for each bank
> of cyliners...

But Ford doesn't think that it's long standing 3.0 V-6 is the engine that
needs to be turbocharged but thinks that its 3.5 V-6 is the engine that
needs to be turbocharged.

Meanwhile...the EPA just came out with a finding that greenhouse gases are a
threat to public safety. And that means that the EPA can regulate without
Congress...

"Comments4u" > wrote in message
...
> Recent Obama Administration statements indicate a willingness to try to
> save some of GM, but not all of it, an obvious solution for a company so
> buried in debt, bad products, obsolete factories, and legacy costs that
> aid
> for the whole would mean subsidies to the end of time. The bad parts
> would
> be liquidated; the good parts would be helped. But that raises the
> question of how to tell the good from the bad, or, perhaps more
> accurately,
> the really bad from the not quite so bad.
>
> Saturn is an obvious liquidation target. The brand has lost money every
> year it has existed. Its original business model - creating a car unique
> in content - was doomed from the beginning, as the importance of parts
> commonality was recognized by American manufacturers in the 20s and by
> Asian manufacturers in the 70s. It could be speculated that Saturn was,
> philosophically, a British project as they never learned this lesson, even
> to the point that during British Leyland's last gasp in the 80s, Jaguars,
> Rovers, Triumphs, and MGs used different shades of white paint.
>
> Clearly Hummer has most of the same problems as Saturn. While some may
> want to retain Hummer due to its military applications, high volume sales
> to the military would require a need to replace current equipment. And
> that would occur only if existing equipment were destroyed in constant,
> long term, no victory in sight wars, something President Obama, unlike his
> predecessor, seems interested in avoiding.
>
> Pontiac and Buick are obviously finished. Once having sufficient volume
> to
> support single marque dealerships, GM forced its Buick and Pontiac dealers
> to consolidate and, even then, volume was so insufficient it threw GMC
> into
> the mix.
>
> That leaves Chevrolet and Cadillac as the "least bad". Can they survive?
>
> Interestingly, both are highly truck oriented brands, and, despite obvious
> consumer preferences, some members of Congress think GM's problems are due
> to building trucks. Of course, letting Chevrolet and Cadillac continue to
> build what they know how to build would put them at risk for non
> compliance
> with CAFE. It would take a nearly unprecedented case of logical thinking
> on the part of Congress to realize Chevrolet and Cadillac only have a
> chance to survive it they do what they're better at, building trucks and
> large cars, and that market manipulation is generally a bad idea.
>
> So what is to become of the "Bad GM"? Brands that don't sell are worth
> nothing. Plants and equipment for an industry that has twice the capacity
> it needs are essentially scrap. The creditors may find that selling the
> remnants costs more than can be recovered.
>
> That being the case, the "Good GM" should keep everything required to
> produce trucks and large cars, rights to parts for discontinued brands
> (Chevrolet and Cadillac can offer parts and service for all models built
> in
> the last few years) and all trademarks. That way, the "Good GM" can
> almost
> break even for a few years, until Toyota and Nissan learn how to build
> large pickups that do more than feed the owner's ego while he load the bed
> with bags of groceries.
>
> Then after liquidating Chevrolet and Cadillac, the "Good GM" can become a
> one employee company selling GTO and Camaro T Shirts on Cafe Press. Rick
> Waggoner, don't cancel your internet service just yet. There's a future
> work from home job for you at the new "Good GM".

The best thing they can do now that Wagoner is out, is keep the incompetant
greedy fool out!!

If he was Japanese, he would seriously be asked to commit suicide. The
honorable thing to do.

Wagoner ran down, with CAW/UAW help, GM to a point where only chapter 11/7
will now work. Anyone thinking GM is going to live without a major coast to
coast tax increase is smoking crack. That is, to survive they need to use
the tax system to steal from everyone else.

> "Comments4u" > wrote in
> message
> ...

The only thing GM did wrong is that they didn't come to the internet
sooner and ask all the arm chair managers to put down their beer and
expound their brilliance as it has been shown here.

Best laugh I've had since I drove a Honda back in the early
seventies.....