GM claims Americans are over bailout anger

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Wishful thinking much?

General Motors Co. claims the American public’s anger toward it for accepting a $50 billion U.S. government bailout in 2009 has ebbed, the Associated Press reports.

The news service cites remarks by GM's CEO Dan Akerson. He says a poll taken this summer by Washington, D.C.-based public opinion researcher Peter Hart Associates found that more than 70% of Americans now have a positive opinion of GM. The ratio was reversed in July 2009 when GM emerged from bankruptcy, according to Akerson.

In 2010 his predecessor Ed Whitacre complained about the stigma of being known as “Government Motors.” Akerson says the company has “kind of gotten over that” now that it is profitable, the AP says. GM netted $7.1 billion in the first nine months of 2011.

Akerson says the U.S. government, which still owns a 26.5% stake in the company, remains a hands-off investor. But he reiterates his concern that the government’s cap on GM’s executive compensation could hurt the company’s ability to recruit and retain top talent. The pay restrictions will prevent GM from paying bonuses to senior executives this year, even though the company could earn as much as $9 billion.
____________________________________________

A little heads-up for Mr. Akerson, who's real glad we have short memories:

Perhaps Americans are unaware that the government now expects to lose $23.6 billion from the bailout. Perhaps Americans have forgotten that our tax dollars funded that takeover (think you could have found a better use for YOUR money?). Perhaps Americans are unaware that, unlike in a traditional bankruptcy (where shareholders are paid off from the company's assets), that's not the case in a government "bailout". Rather, the bailout screwed the shareholders (as well as GM's creditors). Think that might make investors and suppliers nervous about where the government might intrude next? Perhaps Americans are unaware that the UAW did *just fine* after the bailout, and didn't suffer the same fate as those of us who held GM (and supplier / vendor) stock. Think Americans might have forgotten about the employees of 25% of all dealerships who lost their jobs in the three months after the bailout?

Some of us have't forgotten. :mad:


User avatar
Encryptshun
Posts: 11309
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:48 am
Car: 2005 Nissan Xterra
Location: Outside Chicago
Contact:

Post

Philosoraptor asks:

"If the U.S. makes money on GM stock....

....will they pay capital gains on it?"

User avatar
bundy26
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:52 am
Car: 2011 Buick Regal turbo
Location: Dover NJ

Post

The goverment , GM and all the other corporations are so out of touch with what people really feel about them, they should have never approved the bailout.
They should have bailed out many of the small companies that went under because of these greedy f***.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

I didn't like Whitacre and I don't like Akerson. They can BOTH feel free to go back to their phone companies and leave the car building to car people.

User avatar
Encryptshun
Posts: 11309
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:48 am
Car: 2005 Nissan Xterra
Location: Outside Chicago
Contact:

Post

Is that why Ford and GM are now building big phones with cars around them?

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Image
Image

They might have a point. Trends show a rebound for even Chrysler, though it looks like GM's has been slower (as was its decline); Toyota and Honda are falling.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

0% interest has a way of pulling people out of their doublewides and down to the Chebby dealer. ;)


....aaaaand, it's 2001 all over again.

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

They're half right, half wrong. A significant number of Americans defected to Ford specifically in response to GM and Chrysler's bailouts. Domestic loyalists also tend to be less wary of Hyundai for whatever reason, likely due to less cultural baggage from Korea.

Chrysler secured private investment through a foreign partnership that lowered some of its production costs and increased its scale efficiencies. Chrysler also has strong exposure to the European market through US-built Chrysler products sold as Lancias.

I'm more skeptical of GM's recovery. Whitacre and Akerson have a tendency to claim victories before achieving them. Rick Wagoner's smartest move during his time at GM was finding a Chinese partner. The timing was brilliant.

Unfortunately, even China's auto market has slowed a bit.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

I'm one of those who can really appreciate Ford staying "above the fray" in that whole mess.

Then again, I really like ANY company that can design a 3.5l twin-turbocharged, direct-injected engine that makes 365 horsepower and 420lb-ft of torque, and throws it in a full-size 4wd truck that'll run 14's all day long and still get 21 mpg.

Yeah. I'm a reformed Ford-hater.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Hey, did that new one in your garage come with heated bumpers?

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

:)

No, but it has a hell of a Pedestrian Protection System. ;)

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Oooh, I haven't heard of that one!

Lemme guess, does the PPS entail the function: "Doesn't go anywhere?"

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Nope. Runs like a top.

Think of it as this:

Image

...for a car. :)

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

...can I borrow your car and take it to Lollapalooza?

User avatar
IanS
Posts: 9758
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:07 pm
Car: 2002 Subaru WRX, 2010 Subaru Forester XT, 2004 Infiniti G35 Coupe.
Location: Esko, MN
Contact:

Post

AZhitman wrote:0% interest has a way of pulling people out of their doublewides and down to the Chebby dealer. ;)
Ain't no wide like a double wide.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:...can I borrow your car and take it to Lollapalooza?
Will you shower first?

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

AZhitman wrote:Then again, I really like ANY company that can design a 3.5l twin-turbocharged, direct-injected engine that makes 365 horsepower and 420lb-ft of torque, and throws it in a full-size 4wd truck that'll run 14's all day long and still get 21 mpg.
Feel free to let me know as soon as that happens. It hasn't yet. Ford hasn't done it. NO ONE has been able to replicate Ford's outlandishly optimistic MPG claims with that engine. Magazines across the board report 16mpg in everyday driving with the SHO, and we're seeing 15mpg average out of the Ecoboost F150 in the real world--EXACTLY the same as the V8.

Meanwhile, GM and Nissan are making nearly the same power from slightly more displacement WITHOUT TURBOS. AND the fuel economy is real-world good.

Oh, also, feel free to let me know when Ford puts it in something that weighs less than the Exxon Valdez.

Yeah...I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the Ecoboost V6.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

AZhitman wrote:
IBCoupe wrote:...can I borrow your car and take it to Lollapalooza?
Will you shower first?
Why should that matter? What's important is that I shower after. :D

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

What really bugs me about GM's management is their current handling of Cadillac.

The ATS is coming soon and the XTS is due to arrive in spring 2012. Akerson has stated that they will be competitive but "won't blow the doors off the competition."

I'm all for straight talk, but if the CEO of an auto manufacturer doesn't believe in his products, then who will?

ATS is supposed to be a 3-series sized compact entry-luxury car. Its also going to weigh OVER 4000LBS. The XTS is hideously ugly and has less width, leg room, and cargo capacity than the DTS it replaces. The XTS's wheelbase is also SHORTER than the CTS!

I could go on, but I'll probably get angry and throw my Thinkpad at the wall.

User avatar
Dattebayo
Posts: 33288
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 10:04 am
Car: 2004 Nissan Frontier Desert Runner
Location: NE DC

Post

Sounds like some kind of psychological trick, a self fulfilling prophesy...

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Jesda wrote:What really bugs me about GM's management is their current handling of Cadillac.

The ATS is coming soon and the XTS is due to arrive in spring 2012. Akerson has stated that they will be competitive but "won't blow the doors off the competition."

I'm all for straight talk, but if the CEO of an auto manufacturer doesn't believe in his products, then who will?

ATS is supposed to be a 3-series sized compact entry-luxury car. Its also going to weigh OVER 4000LBS. The XTS is hideously ugly and has less width, leg room, and cargo capacity than the DTS it replaces. The XTS's wheelbase is also SHORTER than the CTS!

I could go on, but I'll probably get angry and throw my Thinkpad at the wall.
Where'd the 4000lbs thing come from? Everything I'm reading about the ATS makes me want one, but I haven't found that, yet.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Nevermind; found it. I have faith that they'll work it out to be more competitive with the 3-series. Wonder if redesigning the suspension wouldn't be worth preventing the lost sales from turning their car into a slug.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Feel free to let me know as soon as that happens. It hasn't yet. Ford hasn't done it. NO ONE has been able to replicate Ford's outlandishly optimistic MPG claims with that engine. Magazines across the board report 16mpg in everyday driving with the SHO, and we're seeing 15mpg average out of the Ecoboost F150 in the real world--EXACTLY the same as the V8.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/05/cl ... ickup.html

The EPA claims 17 city/23 hwy/19 combined mpg.

The V8 is another $1700 IIRC, and the diesel is thousands more.

Nissan shouldn't even enter into a fuel-economy discussion. The new Frontier 4.0 disgusts me. 14 mpg? WTF, Nissan? Get a damn clue. My Corvette does better than that.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

AZhitman wrote:<a class="vglnk" title="Link added by VigLink" rel="nofollow" href="http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/05/cl ... up.html</a>
I don't give half dead roach what someone "coaxed" from the ultra-econotrim, garbage diff ratio, crap econotires, 2wd economodel by ultra-econo driving. The real world is where I drive. And In the real world we drive real trucks, with real axle ratios and real tires and 4wd. And we drive them like trucks, not like priuses at the hands of octogenarians.

If you or I were to drive a real F150 with that engine under the hood, we'd suck down a gallon every 15 miles. You know it, and I know it. Posing it in front of pretty pastures and neutering its truck capabilities to improve economy doesn't change that. It's not the ENGINE that's picking up 5mpg with that CleanMPG bullcrap, it's everything else that was done to the TRUCK. You throw those tires, that rear end, and everything else on a V8 F150 and you drive it like a dead grandma and I'll bet my socks it does 21mpg OR BETTER.

It's not the engine. It's NOT the turbos.

And the EPA has always been fulla crap when it comes to fuel economy, especially where boost is involved. I've never believed them before, and I'm sure not planning to start here. The EPA says the SHO gets 17/25 but EVERY OTHER SOURCE ANYWHERE says 16 average. It's always the same 16, too. So I'm more inclined than ever to distrust the EPA's ratings on this particular engine. Go ahead, punch "taurus sho 16mpg" into Google and check out the results.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54542
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

I don't disagree necessarily. I like the engine and I like what it does (regardless of what they put it in - I think it should have been in the Focus).

When we were at the Ford booth at SEMA, I was looking at a cutaway of the 3.5 and one of the reps came over to answer any questions...

"Pretty cool, huh? It's been a big hit in the F150."

"Eh. I was thinking it'd be cool in an old rat rod. I'll keep an eye on the wrecking yards."

:)

User avatar
Jesda
Posts: 39644
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 1:50 pm
Location: STL, DTW
Contact:

Post

Part of the problem with the ATS was that it was originally intended to be a Holden, so less exotic components were used and borrowed from all over GM's global network to keep the price down. Pontiac was going to get a version of the car but Pontiac disappeared, and Holden moved on.

That platform has been in development for a ridiculous amount of time, something like 8 or 9 years.

I expect the ATS to be a fully competent, highly refined entry-luxury car, but probably not something that will beat the 3-series and G37. The problem is, when you introduce a model into a segment you haven't competed in before, you have to outdo the competition from day one.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

This is true. I'm going to keep looking for it, but I still want my FR-S.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

AZhitman wrote:I don't disagree necessarily. I like the engine and I like what it does (regardless of what they put it in - I think it should have been in the Focus).

When we were at the Ford booth at SEMA, I was looking at a cutaway of the 3.5 and one of the reps came over to answer any questions...

"Pretty cool, huh? It's been a big hit in the F150."

"Eh. I was thinking it'd be cool in an old rat rod. I'll keep an eye on the wrecking yards."

:)
Yeah, I definitely like the engine. I just wish Ford (and everyone else) would shift the focus off of it being an economical V8 alternative and just focus on what it does well.
I like the Duratec 35 itself just fine, but without turbos it's not really int he same league as the VQ37VHR or the LLT/LFX. And if you were to slap a couple turbos on either of those beasties...well...new pants time.

User avatar
Mr1der
Posts: 36020
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:35 am
Car: It's still not a Nissan...
Location: Lebanon TN

Post

AZhitman wrote:I'm one of those who can really appreciate Ford staying "above the fray" in that whole mess.

Then again, I really like ANY company that can design a 3.5l twin-turbocharged, direct-injected engine that makes 365 horsepower and 420lb-ft of torque, and throws it in a full-size 4wd truck that'll run 14's all day long and still get 21 mpg.

Yeah. I'm a reformed Ford-hater.
Took you long enough.

what about building a car on a long standing American icon that'll run with the best Europe has to offer on road courses?

Image

Starting at 40k.

What's the 370Z's starting price last anyone checked?

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

Z's priced right in the middle of the Mustang lineup. Starts at $31k and tops out at $41k for the Nismo.

The Mustang is a lot more car for the money, though...and the Z isn't exactly a bad deal itself.


Return to “General Chat”