with all the talk about bail outs and loans, what do you think will happen? Big two or Big one?

Also, are the US automakers the only people to compete against themselves? what I mean is that Honda shares technology with Acura, but the Honda cars and Acura are NOT the same (Pilot Vs MDX or CR-V Vs RDX) and are in different categories. Whereas the US makers seem to put out the same product with different badges (GMC Sierra and a Silverado are basically the same car, and look exactly the same except for the front grille)

 

As much as all of this sucks for the economy and people involved, in the long run this will be a good thing. Hopefully it will get rid of the inefficiencies in the industry (like producing two identical brands of trucks). Then they can reduce their costs and sell vehicles that people actually want to by.

Before my parents bought their TL, they looked at the Ford/Lincoln/Mercury dealers and the Chevy/GMC/Pontiac dealers, etc. There wasn't a single vehicle that matched the value, features, and style of the TL. Who wants to spend over $25,000 for a Grand Prix with a plain plastic interior?

This is a wake up call for the domestic auto companies.

 

It appears they are going to be bailed out.

GM is asking for $18 billion, Ford is asking for $9 billion, and Chrysler is asking for $13 billion. In return the CEO's, who are fabulously wealthy, will take a pay cut to $1/year, they will sell their private jets, and they say they will focus on flex fuels.

Nowhere is there any kind of concession to the UAW. Nowhere. So this union will maintain its stranglehold on the labor in Detroit until it sucks this new $40 billion dry and the Big 3 come asking for more money in 2015.

Nancy Pelosi says the Big 3 going bankrupt hurts everybody. No, Nancy, it hurts the UAW. Bailing out the Big 3 hurts everybody that pays taxes Nancy.

 

FWIW producing two identical cars is not inefficient, it's actually quite clever. It dosn't cost any more and it allows people to identify with a different brand. It's almost like getting two cars for the price of one. Throw on a couple different body panels, different badges, maybe a couple features and blam, you have a different car...sort of.

Think about what people would say about the '09 TL if you could get it with a different grille.

 

Although you are correct, you will have the sister brands competing against each other in a scenario in which none are profitable because neither can sell enough volume to be efficient.

 

The UAW will be making concessions...don't know what they will be, but they will be giving something up...they (apparently) have become (finally) aware of how grave the situation is.
D3 going bankrupt will hurt everybody...even though I don't like what they are putting out in terms of production, there is too much that depends of the D3 surviving.

However, that seems to be the trend, "too big to die".....so where do you draw the line, and who do you let go down?

 

Why do you say the UAW will be making any concessions? The union is as healthy as a horse and has enough power to force all 3 CEO's to their knees. They also have enough money to easily cover severence pay if any of the Big 3 goes bankrupt. But they don't want you to know that.

This economy would shrug off any bankruptcy. Ford's stock has already lost 90% of its worth. What's another $2 a share? Japan, Korea, and Germany are more than willing to supply us with cars.

The UAW has lobbyists in Washington and they are spreading the fear message through Congress. It's time we tell them to stick it up their ass, just like they tell us whenever we want to contract non-union labor.

 

^^Well, that's what was reported yesterday...

 

Not sure that's true, if you were really smart you would take the most popular one and produce a lot more of that version, models sell over several years, so it would be useful for identifying what consumers really like as opposed to "putting all your eggs in one basket". You don't have to produce any more cars than you would if you were doing a run of one, just think of it as producing one car, but one of the ordering options is a different badge.

I'm not saying you're wrong, this is just a mental exercize since neither of us has any hard numbers, nor would it be easy to prove one way or the other. Too many variables.

As a side note, I really don't understand why more car companies don't do like Acura and provide NO options on their cars. (well almost none) It would seem to me that you could produce 2-3 trim lines and that's that, no mix & match. It sure would save a ton in manufacturing costs.

But once again, while I like the '09 TL as a car, HOLY CRAP have you seen that GRILL?

 

Well, the reason with Acura is easy, they come loaded, there is not that much more that you can add anyways....but I agree with you there; there should be less flavors of the same model....instead of the XL, XLT, Lariat, Harley Davidson, Edie Bauer, SXT, etc versions of the F150, give them one with nothing in it, and one loaded with features, and one loaded with Luxury....heck maybe not even the luxury version....then let the people customize the truck in whichever way they want in with aftermarket parts...

BTW, you seem to really hate the new TL
And on a total side note, check out the RDX board, there are pics of the 2010 with the new grille, IMO it actually works with that car, although the car is still under a bit of camouflage.

 

I understand that Ford's request is somewhat different, as it is instead asking for a nine billion dollar line of credit as opposed to an immediate loan. Apparently it hopes the money may not be required for it to continue operations.

I hope there will be concessions by the UAW. As I've stated before, it's nor the Big Three, its the Big Four(including the UAW). All of them need to make concessions and restructure accordingly.


Terry

 

Yes, it would be in the form a 10-year loan at government rates. This is what Mulally was asking for. However, if Ford runs through that money and defaults (Chapter 11), the taxpayers are on the hook. It would be a risky loan at best for the US Government, especially if the UAW holds firm.

There is news today that the UAW may be willing to disband their jobs bank. That would be a start.

 

Whats worse is not only are there a half dozen starting points on mots models, but then you can mix and match. "I'd like the XLT but not the 4WD version and I'd like it in standard, but no sliding glass rear window, and I'd like the upgraded stereo package and the body side moulding with the extra large rims and the summer tires......."

It seems dumb to me, it is a lot of extra work to add or subtract those things. I realize that people pay for them but you have to either have one ready the way they want it, or retool in order to get one that way. Messes up the point of using assembly line building. Maybe there is a good business reason for doing all this, but I just don't get it.

Another thing that the big 3 do commonly that pisses me off is they basically build a different car but with the same body panels. Like the mustang. Are you really going to try and tell me that the $20k craptastic mustang with a 210 HP V6 shares any parts in common with the $48K Shelby with a 500hp V8 other than the body panels? At 2.5 times the cost I certainly hope not.

Then if you buy a Shelby you get jerks who say things like "Your car sucks, I can beat Mustangs with my Maxima"

 

That jobs bank thing has all but disbanded already, with the last round of contracts, it went from something like 15K people to 2.5K people and dropping. It's a very small concession but a highly visible one. Kind of like driving to DC in a hybrid. However, knowing government like I do, I'm guessing that smoke and mirrors is all congress really needs in order to start throwing money at a problem with both fists.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28030726/

I suspect Ford will survive 2010, but Chrysler will not, whether there is a bail-out or not.

 

Understatement of the Year.