Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-15-2014, 04:06 PM
 
Location: USA
30,561 posts, read 21,730,649 times
Reputation: 18839

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by outafocus View Post
When the government, and a union run things, only bad can happen. I see the taxpayers of this country keeping at least GM going. GM should have been left to fail, as does any other company that is badly run, badly staffed, and turns out inferior products.


If it happened it would have had major ramifications throughout the entire economy and automotive industry. Most people are not even close to being aware of the ramifications of this move.

1) GM is the #1 automotive manufacturing job provider in this country and employs as many Americans as all the Japanese based Manufacturers combined. GM and all of their OEM suppliers would not be absorbed by other automotive manufacturers.

2) The major OEM suppliers LEAR, TENNECO, AAM, DANA, GE, Honeywell, Goodyear, Firestone, and many others that supply OEM parts to GM, also supply parts to all the other Automotive Manufacturers: American, Japanese and German alike. GM accounts for the majority of the products bought from many of these larger American based OEMs. If any of these go under it would affect the supply chain of the remaining Automotive Manufacturers. The argument that the other Manufacturers would magically absorb all of these jobs doesn't work as some of the OEMs, in the case of the Axle manufactures, have almost decade long contracts and have long lead hardware negotiated and planned years in advance.

 
Old 05-15-2014, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 102,794,286 times
Reputation: 29967
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun View Post

If it happened it would have had major ramifications throughout the entire economy and automotive industry. Most people are not even close to being aware of the ramifications of this move.

1) GM is the #1 automotive manufacturing job provider in this country and employs as many Americans as all the Japanese based Manufacturers combined. GM and all of their OEM suppliers would not be absorbed by other automotive manufacturers.

2) The major OEM suppliers LEAR, TENNECO, AAM, DANA, GE, Honeywell, Goodyear, Firestone, and many others that supply OEM parts to GM, also supply parts to all the other Automotive Manufacturers: American, Japanese and German alike. GM accounts for the majority of the products bought from many of these larger American based OEMs. If any of these go under it would affect the supply chain of the remaining Automotive Manufacturers. The argument that the other Manufacturers would magically absorb all of these jobs doesn't work as some of the OEMs, in the case of the Axle manufactures, have almost decade long contracts and have long lead hardware negotiated and planned years in advance.
In summary: private profits buoyed by public risk.

If this is the point we've reached, maybe it's time to break up some of these huge companies that are "too big to fail." If they're too big to fail, they're too big to exist. Otherwise, let them fail and let the chips fall where they may, and let those who have hitched their wagons to the security of a company that is "too big to fail" share the risks of its failure.
 
Old 05-15-2014, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
9,019 posts, read 14,212,555 times
Reputation: 11029
I think new GM is falling into the same trap as old GM. They have no plan. They have some great individual products, but no real plan or vision.

Chrysler/Fiat has a plan. It's crazy, but at least it's something to go off of, and they can see if they're measuring up.

Ford has had a clear plan, and it's reflected in their sales, vehicle quality and unity of brand.
 
Old 05-15-2014, 04:23 PM
 
Location: USA
30,561 posts, read 21,730,649 times
Reputation: 18839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
In summary: private profits buoyed by public risk.

If this is the point we've reached, maybe it's time to break up some of these huge companies that are "too big to fail." If they're too big to fail, they're too big to exist. Otherwise, let them fail and let the chips fall where they may, and let those who have hitched their wagons to the security of a company that is "too big to fail" share the risks of its failure.
Touche'. Unfortunately these big companies have sub tier suppliers that are small companies (Machine shops, Welding firms, metal and plastic suppliers in my case). Of course each one of these 25 person and up shops keep the local restaurants, grocery stores and other mom and pops in business.

 
Old 05-15-2014, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Wake County, NC
2,983 posts, read 4,598,387 times
Reputation: 3529
GM is the best? Hardly. I will give them credit though because they have made huge improvements in their cars since coming out of bankruptcy, despite the recalls. I get GM rental cars fairly often and there is a night and day difference in quality and design from the old GM. Anyway, I hope they succeed, it would be a bad situation for a lot of people if they ever go under.
 
Old 05-15-2014, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 102,794,286 times
Reputation: 29967
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun View Post
Touche'. Unfortunately these big companies have sub tier suppliers that are small companies (Machine shops, Welding firms, metal and plastic suppliers in my case). Of course each one of these 25 person and up shops keep the local restaurants, grocery stores and other mom and pops in business.
Maybe it's time for the industry to understand this is an unsustainable business model at this large a scale. While I get the rationale behind outsourcing many processes to specialty suppliers rather than trying to micromanage every single process, the danger to the rest of the industry should one of the major players go through bankruptcy is reduced if more of these functions and manufacturing processes are brought in-house. Yes, it would have had a huge ripple effect throughout the rest of the industry to have let GM go through a more conventional bankruptcy process. But think of the huge moral hazard we've now created by letting these huge companies use their "too big to fail" status to leverage demands from the public should they find themselves on rocky financial ground again in the future.

Then again perhaps we might as well let them; we already let them extract tax concessions even when they're doing just fine with this "let's pay them to move to our state!" race to the bottom that's all the rage these days.
 
Old 05-15-2014, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,715 posts, read 31,031,321 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garthur View Post
OK, you didn't read my posting or is it that you didn't understand it. Hopefully you know the difference between dependability and quality (as the inspectors see it). I have owned, and rented at least 30 different vehicle brands over my life and I have made the decision that GM products are the most dependable that I have ever owned. In several million miles of driving I have never had a GM transmission fail or an axle fail or and engine go bad. That's why they were rated number one in dependability. In the quality area not so good. But given a choice I would rather buy a knob for $10 or a door handle for $25 then have a $3000 bill for a transmission.
I'm not aware of a single study/survey/etc that ranked GM #1 in dependability over the last 20 years.
 
Old 05-15-2014, 05:11 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,659,590 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63 View Post
I disagree. I like the C7 better than the C6 and the C6 better than the C5. And to be honest, I like all of them anyhow. But the C7 is the most well thought out, highly developed, best performing one of the bunch.




I disagree, as the owner of a new GM product. In fact, since you just called my car crap, I'd like to have you come over and point out exactly WHY it's crap. I know you like my '63 Comet, but I dare you to insult my Volt to my face.
to be fair, ford doesnt ahve much of anything i like after about 1985 either, except the mustang and the thunderbird, and the panther chassis cars.
 
Old 05-15-2014, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Twin Lakes /Taconic / Salisbury
2,256 posts, read 4,471,571 times
Reputation: 1869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourian View Post
So you and all your imaginary GM hater friends all bought GM vehicles 2012? Or went back in time and bought the Cobalts, G5s and HHRs involved in the ignition switch scandal?

You are trolling plain and simple. Here are last month's sales results in the US:

GM: 254,076
Ford: 210,355
Chrysler: 178,652

Toyota: 199,660
Honda: 142,456
Nissan: 103,934

Look who is on top.

Too bad its theres not much profit in being forced to recall MORE cars than you sell though. ESPECIALLY AFTER a bankruptcy.



Back

Share*

GM's recall total nears 13 million worldwide

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

The recall nightmare at General Motors just won't end.

General Motors has recalled another 3 million autos, bringing the troubled automaker's total for the year to 12.8 million worldwide.

GM has been under fire this year for its botched recall of millions of vehicles with an ignition switch problem that the automaker had known about for 10 years. The Department of Justice, investigators from Congress and federal auto regulators are currently probing the decade-long delay.

Most of the cars recalled Thursday were older models built before the company's 2009 bankruptcy, as was the case with the ignition switch recall.

The bulk of the latest recall applies to 2.4 million cars with a wiring problem that's been tied to at least 13 accidents, two injuries and no deaths. Those vehicles include the 2004-2012 Chevrolet Malibu, the 2004-2007 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx, the 2005-2010 Pontiac G6, as well as 2007-2010 Saturn Auras.

The wiring problem could cause the brake lamps to fail to light up when the brakes are applied, or to light up when the brakes are not engaged. Cruise control, traction control, electronic stability control and panic braking assist can also be disabled.

The company issued a service bulletin to dealerships in 2008 about the flaw, but it never ordered a recall.

The ignition switch recall, which has been tied to at least 13 deaths, also started out as a service bulletin.

CEO Mary Barra has repeatedly said the 10 year delay in the ignition recall was unacceptable, and has promised it would not happen again. But Thursday's recall raises concerns about how many more safety issues remain unresolved.

GM is trying to be more proactive, issuing recalls now that they might not have announced before, according spokesman Alan Adler.

"We are changing the way we look at recalls," he said. The automaker says it has more than doubled the number of safety investigators it has to 60.

Kelley Blue Book analyst Karl Brauer says that GM's tighter safety standards may pose an image problem for the automaker.

"For folks who don't follow the industry closely, the impression is that GM just can't build a car right," he said. "That's unfortunate."

The announcement also included four other smaller recalls.

The smallest of the five recalls is also potentially the most serious. GM said that 477 trucks have steering problems that can cause accidents. Truck owners were notified by phone, overnight letter and via the OnStar in-vehicle communication system that they shouldn't even drive their trucks to dealers for repairs. GM will send a flatbed truck to pick up the vehicles, which include some 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups and some 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe SUVs.

"The trucks are an extraordinary issue," said a Adler.

Related: More GM recall news

Typically a significant percentage of recalled vehicles are never actually brought in for repairs.

GM will take a $200 million charge for the cost of these repairs. It took a $1.3 billion charge in the first quarter for the ignition switch flaw, which wiped out its profit for the period.
 
Old 05-15-2014, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Southwest
2,594 posts, read 2,286,432 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
yeah, too bad they are as crappy as the old gm ones were.
I think it was generally agreed upon that they were better from the mid-90s (compared to the late 70s to early 90s) onward up to around a certain year. What was the year(s) when they starting going down?

I'm not sure about this. Anyone want to chime in if I'm wrong?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top