Heres the deal with GM

[ever1221]

okay so now the US gov owns 60% of it the canadian 12% of it.

1- They will cut down 6000 (40%) of their car dealing companys by 2010
2- Saturn, Potiac, Saab, and Hummer will be gone for good

Myabe its time for the US and canadian gov to start from scratch and actually make a car that lasts more than 5 years interms of reliability!

[Prankster]

or the half a million retirees they have?

[mike24]

Say bye bye to the domestic auto industry and high paying manufacturing jobs. They are lost forever.

What adds insult to injury is that GM and Chrysler took the bailout money and then went bankrupt. The taxpayers were left with debt and no jobs. We are paying for jobs that are being created in Eastern Europe, China and Mexico. Yay, good job Obama + Harper!

[leolee_ca]

Say bye bye to the domestic auto industry and high paying manufacturing jobs. They are lost forever.

What adds insult to injury is that GM and Chrysler took the bailout money and then went bankrupt. The taxpayers were left with debt and no jobs. We are paying for jobs that are being created in Eastern Europe and China. Yay, good job Obama + Harper!

GM and Chrysler are not domestic. They are U.S. companies.

[Byrns]

GM and Chrysler are not domestic. They are U.S. companies.

They're global companies with their HQ's in the U.S.

[danfromwaterloo]

Say bye bye to the domestic auto industry and high paying manufacturing jobs. They are lost forever.

What adds insult to injury is that GM and Chrysler took the bailout money and then went bankrupt. The taxpayers were left with debt and no jobs. We are paying for jobs that are being created in Eastern Europe, China and Mexico. Yay, good job Obama + Harper!

Comparatively, there are plenty of "high paying" manufacturing jobs - Honda, Toyota and Ford all operate plants in Canada. Granted, 2/3 of those aren't unionized, but then again, that's probably the reason why most of them are still around.

The last sentence is precisely why I think the governments shouldn't have given a dime to these companies. You're going to be stuck giving money to them for the next 10 years.

[SkiD]

okay so now the US gov owns 60% of it the canadian 12% of it.

1- They will cut down 6000 (40%) of their car dealing companys by 2010
2- Saturn, Potiac, Saab, and Hummer will be gone for good

Myabe its time for the US and canadian gov to start from scratch and actually make a car that lasts more than 5 years interms of reliability!

GM had a few big problems:
- legacy costs
- too many brands
- too many dealers
- lots of long term debt

Bankruptcy protection is basically allowing them to 'get rid of' most of these problems and giving them a semi blank slate to work with.

I wouldn't be worried about GM that much anymore, they should emerge a lot more lean and profitable, I would be worried about Ford - they will be at a competive disadvantage now.

Also, the vehicles that will be left in their portfolio are very competitive with all the other players in the market in terms of design, fuel efficiency, reliability.

[Engi-Nir]

GM had a few big problems:
- legacy costs
- too many brands
- too many dealers
- lots of long term debt

Bankruptcy protection is basically allowing them to 'get rid of' most of these problems and giving them a semi blank slate to work with.

I wouldn't be worried about GM that much anymore, they should emerge a lot more lean and profitable, I would be worried about Ford - they will be at a competive disadvantage now.

Also, the vehicles that will be left in their portfolio are very competitive with all the other players in the market in terms of design, fuel efficiency, reliability.
In RFD, all they know is, GM cars breaks/falls apart in 2yrs

[jasonkwan86]

I heard Koeniggsegg is looking into pickup up SAAB :S

[help_questions]

In RFD, all they know is, GM cars breaks/falls apart in 2yrs

yeah, and outside of RFD, they don't even last that long.

[Engi-Nir]

yeah, and outside of RFD, they don't even last that long.

I know eh, you are always full of valuable information

[Steve_YXE]

yeah, and outside of RFD, they don't even last that long.

-1
same old **** different day

[m4gician]

I heard Koeniggsegg is looking into pickup up SAAB :S

ooooh :D

[superdeals]

GM and Chrysler are not domestic. They are U.S. companies.

+1. Some nutcase Canadians don't seem to get it.

[help_questions]

I know eh, you are always full of valuable information

I try to help the community. Thanks for noticing!

[Jon Lai]

+1. Some nutcase Canadians don't seem to get it.

+2

I hate how people keep calling US companies "domestic".

[frogger]

USA allows parts from Canada to be considered domestic content in their vehicles.

[z24driver1986]

In RFD, all they know is, GM cars breaks/falls apart in 2yrs

I am tired of this attitude.... GM cars are pretty reliable for the money... I've bought a used 2001 Cavalier 4 years ago and it's never let me down, its always started and ran like it should. Regular maintenance and wear and tear items replaced. I would never even touch a Japanese car....

[chanp99]

I am tired of this attitude.... GM cars are pretty reliable for the money... I've bought a used 2001 Cavalier 4 years ago and it's never let me down, its always started and ran like it should. Regular maintenance and wear and tear items replaced. I would never even touch a Japanese car....

Good for you.

[tmkf_patryk]

I am tired of this attitude.... GM cars are pretty reliable for the money... I've bought a used 2001 Cavalier 4 years ago and it's never let me down, its always started and ran like it should. Regular maintenance and wear and tear items replaced. I would never even touch a Japanese car....

I agree, actually DOMESTIC are better than the jap!
here is how it works, lets say they are as reliable as one another, 1 breaks down prematurely every 100 made

there are MORE DOMESTICS SOLD than jap ****, so there are more domestic cars that break down, but compared to how much are sold and how much break down, domestic are as reliable if not more reliable than jap cars. Ontop of that parts are cheaper!
Wear and tear is normal for cars, but if you dont check coolant, oil, and other levels once every week or two and dont stop something before it starts, then dont complain something breaks down
it is SUGGESTED to check levels atleast once a week

[grant]

Myabe its time for the US and canadian gov to start from scratch and actually make a car that lasts more than 5 years interms of reliability!
You talk like you think you know something, but then you post idiotic nonsense like this?? weird.

[weedb0y]

yeah, and outside of RFD, they don't even last that long.

yah ok, I have had my sunfire last more than 320,000 with minimal maintainence..

I've had to spend more on my Acuras and Hondas..

My next car will be a premium GM..

[JENOVA]

I agree that GM vehicles are just as good, we've always had GM cars since 1994. Safaris, Astros, Suburban, Jimmy, Venture and now an Uplander.

For the Sunfire, did you have to change the timing belt or chain during your ownership? I'm just wondering cos you mentioned minimal maintenance and I just had to know if the timing belt or chain was part of the maintenance or not :D


yah ok, I have had my sunfire last more than 320,000 with minimal maintainence..

I've had to spend more on my Acuras and Hondas..

My next car will be a premium GM..

[originalnutta]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=248

Goodbye, GM ...by Michael Moore

[Engi-Nir]

+2

I hate how people keep calling US companies "domestic".

Is any company domestic anymore, all made in China and stamped made in USA or Canada, etc lol

[CUVShopper]

Myabe its time for the US and canadian gov to start from scratch and actually make a car that lasts more than 5 years interms of reliability!

that is scary..governments can't do anything right...the new GM....Government Motors.

[freeonboard]

I agree, actually DOMESTIC are better than the jap!
here is how it works, lets say they are as reliable as one another, 1 breaks down prematurely every 100 made

there are MORE DOMESTICS SOLD than jap ****, so there are more domestic cars that break down, but compared to how much are sold and how much break down, domestic are as reliable if not more reliable than jap cars. Ontop of that parts are cheaper!
Wear and tear is normal for cars, but if you dont check coolant, oil, and other levels once every week or two and dont stop something before it starts, then dont complain something breaks down
it is SUGGESTED to check levels atleast once a week

what kind of car do you have that you have check fluid levels weekly? low fluid levels doesnt have much to do with car breaking down. your theory that domestic cars are more reliable is lunacy. i feel good about myself.

[MasterXan]

the only people who say GM and Chrysler are domestic are the the union members.

it would be funny if Opel builds cars here with non-unionized workers and the CAW bitches that Opels aren't domestic. their true colors would come out then.

[User Name]

I agree, actually DOMESTIC are better than the jap!
here is how it works, lets say they are as reliable as one another, 1 breaks down prematurely every 100 made

there are MORE DOMESTICS SOLD than jap ****, so there are more domestic cars that break down, but compared to how much are sold and how much break down, domestic are as reliable if not more reliable than jap cars. Ontop of that parts are cheaper!
Wear and tear is normal for cars, but if you dont check coolant, oil, and other levels once every week or two and dont stop something before it starts, then dont complain something breaks down
it is SUGGESTED to check levels atleast once a week

what kind of car do you have that you have check fluid levels weekly? low fluid levels doesnt have much to do with car breaking down. your theory that domestic cars are more reliable is lunacy. i feel good about myself.

He's the dude with the 600 hp trans am... KITT needs lots of TLC.

[Jon Lai]

Is any company domestic anymore, all made in China and stamped made in USA or Canada, etc lol

WTF, they don't do that. I'm sure the label is accurate.

[chadjustine]

yah ok, I have had my sunfire last more than 320,000 with minimal maintainence..

I've had to spend more on my Acuras and Hondas..

My next car will be a premium GM..


+1. Uncle has a 2001 Saturn with going on to 335,000kms. Puts in about $500 - 750 every 18 months into it.

[chadjustine]

Myabe its time for the US and canadian gov to start from scratch and actually make a car that lasts more than 5 years interms of reliability!


*yawn* Come up with something new.

[Tomy]

yah ok, I have had my sunfire last more than 320,000 with minimal maintainence..

I've had to spend more on my Acuras and Hondas..

My next car will be a premium GM..

lucky you..on the other hand, other than maintenance, i haven't fixed a thing yet on my acura. similar mileage, same year as the pontiac torrent

my parents are homers, and our pontiac and buicks always have problems here and there, yet they refuse to stop buying it.

the car wouldn't start last month b/c it was parked outside for 2 days. AND this is a new battery under warranty... and man, dont get me started on the services and service advisors.

[Kayne]

I am tired of this attitude.... GM cars are pretty reliable for the money... I've bought a used 2001 Cavalier 4 years ago and it's never let me down, its always started and ran like it should. Regular maintenance and wear and tear items replaced. I would never even touch a Japanese car....

I have a GM car that has not seen a shop in 3+ years. I actually had to bring it out of early hybernation to pick up my Honda from its monthly shop visits>:(

The owner of my Honda lot even drives an older American hot rod and has Corvettes pasted to the walls of the service dept.

[Engi-Nir]

How Rick Wagoner Lost GM

GM's ex-CEO threw out the good-governance structure in place when he took over, then made bad decision after bad decision, backed by his rubber-stamp board


General Motors' legendary management system and industrial might were once revered by management scholars and business historians; the thought of bankruptcy would have been beyond improbable and indeed laughable. Yet now the automaker has joined the list of giants that have been forced to file for Chapter 11, and this once-unthinkable event is being met with cries for accountability.

When we look at the fall of General Motors, surely the culpability for failure can be attributed to a combination of factors: specific leaders' blind spots, the intransigent culture of the company, and a governance process that allowed those charged with oversight to agree to antiquated labor/management cost concessions and demonstrate a collective tin ear about consumer disdain, shareholder frustration, and analyst troubleshooting. However, despite complex institutional factors accounting for GM's collapse, Rick Wagoner, the CEO who reigned at the time of the bankruptcy, will be known as the man who lost GM.

Certainly, many observers would say the die was cast long ago by former CEO Roger Smith, who was behind the wheel from 1981 through 1990. Smith was just one of a long line of "finance men" selected to lead the engineers and marketing executives known as the "car guys" (a tradition that dated back to Frederick Donner in 1958). Smith's disastrous attempts to reorganize GM's bureaucracy in the 1980s had a lingering effect. A belated effort to respond to increasing Japanese competition in the smaller car market resulted in GM's introduction of the unpopular, unattractive X-cars.

The clustering of eight business units into a big-car and a small-car division was supposed to spark efficiencies and cross-divisional unity, but the result was internal sparring and lookalike cars with varied name plates. A $9,000 Pontiac was hard to distinguish from a $25,000 Cadillac. This was especially disastrous to the luxury market, where GM resorted to bumper extensions and extra chrome for cosmetic decorative differences instead of authentic mechanical, electronic safety, and efficiency advances. As GM's market share fell, its plants had tremendous excess capacity.

Quality Plummeted
By 1989, GM was losing more than $2,000 on every car it built through the organizational restructuring. In an effort to race new models into production faster, quality standards plummeted under Smith. In 1989 he launched the innovative Saturn division with unrealistic expectations (it needed to sell an unattainable half-million cars a year to break even) while allowing Saturn to cannibalize from existing GM brands. Smith squandered billions more through the misguided acquisitions of EDS and Hughes Aircraft.

He nonetheless survived despite shareholder outrage, analyst condemnations, media criticism, and downright ridicule in Michael Moore's blockbuster film Roger and Me.

Smith's secret weapon was his ability to manipulate GM's board, which he had packed with three top subordinates as well as public figures such as Ambassador Anne Armstrong, social activist Reverend Leon Sullivan, two academics, and GM's local Detroit banker. Full board meetings were ceremonial ratification events as the Smith-controlled committees provided whatever review was required. I knew Roger Smith, and even in informal, off-the-record gatherings, I always saw him flanked only by protective staffers.

The sorry state of corporate governance at GM was described in an internal 1988 memo by former Vice-Chairman Elmer Johnson (whom I knew well), who was recruited from GM's outside law firm: "Our culture discourages open, frank debate among GM executives in the pursuit of problem resolution. There exists a clear perception among the rank and file of GM personnel that management does not receive bad news well…our most serious problem pertains to organization and culture." Johnson complained that GM was imperiled by a 1950s mindset of "a very stable, predictable world" and "a culture not prepared to deal with new realities," with GM's overwhelming competitive advantage being its "monumental economies of scale."


A top GM decision-maker for 17 years
Given GM's cultural hindrances, Rick Wagoner's weak predecessors, and the perilous economic times, does this mean Wagoner, an honest, likeable fellow, is exempt from blame? Not if we think of CEOs as possessing transcendent leadership qualities. He led as CEO from 2000 to 2009 and as President or CFO since 1992—17 years at the controls as GM careened toward the cliff, failing to brake.

This is not the first time GM has faced tough times. Soon after William Durant, a former carriage engineer, founded GM in 1904, he drove the company into several potholes—even then needing large bailouts by its bankers. Hitting economic distress a decade later, Durant lost control of the business to Pierre Du Pont—who in turn instituted needed financial discipline and accountability. In 1923, Du Pont turned over the keys to the ingenious Alfred Sloan, who introduced style and design to auto manufacturing as well as a sound management structure.

Rick Wagoner proved to be no Pierre Du Pont or Alfred Sloan. In fact, the affable Wagoner can be judged more harshly than the vilified Roger Smith since Wagoner had Smith's public lessons to draw from. But rather than learn from them, Wagoner repeated them. For example, Wagoner's immediate predecessor, the short-term transitional figure Jack Smith, served as CEO while former Procter & Gamble (PG) CEO John Smale served as chairman. This revolutionary separating of the CEO and chairman roles (and the consequent addition of truly independent directors) allowed the board to pursue an agenda wrested from management's control.

Yet these reforms, inspired by attorney Ira Millstein, were rolled back under Wagoner. He recombined the chairman and CEO roles, assuming greater board control. He then packed the board with sympathetic voices, including four fallen CEOs from other companies, and ceremonial, nonbusiness figures. With the exception of two or three truly independent voices (especially the courageous surviving directors Kent Kressa and Neville Isdelle), the emotionally conflicted larger board circled the wagons to protect the CEO when legitimate criticisms arose, much as Roger Smith's board did.

This board rubber-stamping allowed Wagoner, a product of GM's dangerous cultural mindset, to drive the company back into past calamitous potholes. Consider this sampling of missteps on Wagoner's part:

• He lost $82 billion in just the past four years, and cash management was so poor that five years ago, GM's debt was properly downgraded to junk-bond status.

• He made astoundingly bad product decisions, such as supporting the poor-selling Pontiac Aztek and cancelling GM's early move into hybrids. And Chevrolet could have been marketing the Volt a decade earlier than it did, thanks to the prescience of Robert Stemple, a Wagoner predecessor who as CEO from 1990 through 1992 greenlighted the development of the EV 1, the first electric car.

• In 2002 he ignored urgent trends to focus on car development while reaping 90% of profits from pick-ups and SUVs.

• He maintained too many divisions and too many lookalike products.

• He was under-responsive as the economic crisis revealed itself, cutting production only 25%, while Ford cut more than 45% in the first two quarters of this year.

• He squandered great names like Saab, Opel, Saturn, and Hummer by not properly investing in them and hoping instead to harvest past initiatives and covertly transplant core GM car platforms.

• He led a misguided joint venture with Fiat that cost GM $2 billion to extricate itself from. He allowed GMAC, when he controlled it, to bathe in the subprime lending market with its disasterous RESCAP subsidiary. Contrast that with the strategy of Ford (F), which got out of that high-risk lending in 2002.

• He sold GM's valuable GMAC internal financing arm to Cerberus, which also controlled GM competitor Chrysler. In December and January, Cerebrus basically stopped writing retail finance contracts to support GM buyers.

• He pursued plans to purchase Chrysler, drawing on an anachronistic mindset that saw virtue in bulk operational size and scale efficiencies rather than profits, quality, and reputation.

• Wagoner continually went before the American public and Congress unprepared and angry, demanding taxpayer support without ever being able to articulate why he wanted $25 billion, how the company would use the money, and what GM's vision was for a future viable enterprise.