GM's new plan to survive

[The_Blur]

I give a thumb up for giving it all. GM is willing to make a lot of sacrifices. I'm very disappointed to hear that GMC is considered a core brand. All they do is sell rebadged Chevrolets.

[av8r]

I hear there are talks about nationalizing the brand? I dunno what that would mean for us as a country. Tax payers own it?

[Inspector 17]

Although this restructuring is going to be painful, it is the right thing to do in order to make the company viable long term. I worked for a company that went from 100,000 worldwide down to around 60,000 in the matter of two years. It was painful, but doable and was absolutely necessary to keep the company afloat. I am confident that GM can do it and in the end the slimming of the company and the products will keep her alive.

To all those in GM, hang in there! We are doing what we can (letters to representatives, buying cars, etc) to help you out.

[radz28]

I can totally see GMC being a core brand, moreso if they got rid of Chevy trucks. They do have a couple exclusive vehicles that I recall, but not much different than what Chevy has, just like you said. All this information is staggering, really... How much control is the government really going to have on what choices we have on what vehicles we can buy. This is very scary... Not to mention all the people this plan effects. So many jobs and families will be effected, it's not even funny.

How did Detroit get here?

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by av8r

I hear there are talks about nationalizing the brand? I dunno what that would mean for us as a country. Tax payers own it?

They are not suggesting nationalizing GM. Taxpayers will own a small stake in GM to hold it accountable. That is all.

[MrIcky]

GMC sells med-heavy equipment (such as 5500/6500 and chassis cabs) so it makes sense to keep them as a brand. However, I don't know why GMC sells light trucks.

As far as the plan goes- it's harsh but it's good to see that they are "all in" on making this work out short of a bankruptcy. Maybe I'll forego the Camaro and go get a Cobalt SS this week. My stock is in the crapper anyway so I might as well go have some fun with what I have left.

[Angrybird 12]

Now My comments:
I can't see them selling Saturn, everything they sell now is tied into another GM division, but it really didn’t say they were going to sell or fold Saturn, but that was an option they could have, he said they would plot a new course for them (something I thought they had done in the last 3 years). But if they were going to fold Saturn this is what I would like to see…

I think they should make the Vue the next Equinox, take the Sky into the Chevy brand change a few details to make it look a little more like a retro Corvette and call it the Stingray. and then drop the rest of the Saturn line.

Chevy should start building the Aveo here, along with the Cruze, drop the Cobalt, Keep the Malibu, Camaro and Corvette. Drop the Impala, (Leave the big cars to Buick).

For Pontiac keep the Solstice, the G8 ST, and maybe the G8 GXP & GT, and drop the rest.

GMC should just handle the large commercial trucks and let Chevy have the consumer lineup of pickups , SUV’s and vans.

Buick should drop the Enclave but keep their two cars.

Leave Cadillac as is except drop the XLR sportscar.

oh yeah, call the Volt, the GM Volt and let all the brands sell it.


But that is my opinion.

[stovt001]

A niche Pontiac? So does that mean the Lamda based G12 I was so looking forward to is dead? And what of the Hummer and Saab Lambdas? The world should not be deprived of 3 more models of the exact same vehicle!

OK in all seriousness, this plan is pretty good. I still don't see a need for a truck-only brand in this market, and we've all heard about a million promises from GM to make Pontiac a niche performance brand and then they give us the G3, but this is a solid start.

[a6pk2go]

I got an e-mail from my congress woman today about the financial state of the auto industry.

Here is is:


Dear Mr. Richerson:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the financial state of the U.S. automobile industry. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Our economy is facing dramatic challenges. Financial conditions are rapidly deteriorating, creating volatility and uncertainty for businesses, small and large, across the country.

As Texans, we have learned to take responsibility for our actions and being asked to pay for the mistakes of others is something many, including myself, find deeply troubling. While I am a firm believer of free market principles, I also believe that our economy is facing new challenges that if unaddressed, may produce serious unwarranted costs.

On September 30, 2008, the President signed into law H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009. This legislation included, among many items, funding to support a $25 billion loan program for U.S. automakers. The loans, which will be repaid with interest, are intended for long-term business restructuring to promote innovative technologies and new fuel efficient products. The Department of Energy, which is administering the loan program, has indicated that the loans are scheduled to be released in 12 to 18 months.

Several weeks after H.R. 2638 was signed into law, executives of the three major U.S. automakers requested Congress provide an additional $25 billion to $50 billion from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to support their short-term funding needs. The CEOs of the largest U.S. automakers testified before Congress that their companies are facing a liquidity crisis, and without an immediate injection of capital, their businesses may fail, creating massive job losses across the country.

The domestic auto industry has failed to meet foreign competition, and I do not think taxpayers should have to provide additional money from the TARP to the auto industry. Instead, I have proposed restructuring and expediting the $25 billion Department of Energy loan program to help the American auto industry weather the financial storm and retain their employees across the country. Requiring these prior funds, which are required to be paid back with interest, to be used on long-term expenditures is not the best use of federal resources when these companies are struggling to stay operational. Rather, these funds should be utilized for short-term needs first. I also believe that any government plan to aid the auto industry must include significant taxpayer protections, including restrictions on executive compensation, concessions from the unions, and assurances that each recipient of federal loans is financially viable.

As Congress returns to debate this issue, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you. I hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov

[MerF]

Nice response.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I give a thumb up for giving it all. GM is willing to make a lot of sacrifices. I'm very disappointed to hear that GMC is considered a core brand. All they do is sell rebadged Chevrolets.

They sell rebadged Chevrolets...yet GMC is still GM's second best-selling brand.

GMC is brilliant...spend no engineering dollars, slap on some different body panels, and people will still buy them.

Believe me guys, GM has analyzed this over and over again, and if GMC wasn't economically feasible, they would kill it. There's obviously still some money coming out of that division.

[GrnMchin]

Ouch.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

They sell rebadged Chevrolets...yet GMC is still GM's second best-selling brand.

GMC is brilliant...spend no engineering dollars, slap on some different body panels, and people will still buy them.

Believe me guys, GM has analyzed this over and over again, and if GMC wasn't economically feasible, they would kill it. There's obviously still some money coming out of that division.

As I recall, GMC is their most profitable brand.

[camaro5]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

They won't offer many mainstream products. Cars like the solstice would stay, the G5 would go.

Yes, and probably the G8, will stay too.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I haven't commented yet . . .

GM is asking for 18B? Seems like too big of a slice to me since they account for ~40% of domestic sales. The other surprising thing is the NEED $4B this month.

Me too. Talk about cutting it close.

Originally Posted by radz282003

I can totally see GMC being a core brand, moreso if they got rid of Chevy trucks. They do have a couple exclusive vehicles that I recall, but not much different than what Chevy has, just like you said. All this information is staggering, really... How much control is the government really going to have on what choices we have on what vehicles we can buy. This is very scary... Not to mention all the people this plan effects. So many jobs and families will be effected, it's not even funny.

How did Detroit get here?

It IS scary.

As far as how they got there, IMHO, they did not learn the lessons taught in 1973. The big 3 let gas-guzzling trucks and suv's dominate the US market. They were high-profit, they took the quick and easy money. Now it's biting all 3 of them you-know-where. Plus the whole industry has collapsed, due to mortgage crisis, recession, etc. -argh.

Originally Posted by Skyman 08

call the Volt, the GM Volt and let all the brands sell it.

The PT Cruiser was a Plymouth and a Chrysler at the same time. I think that's a good idea. The Volt is key.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

As I recall, GMC is their most profitable brand.

I'll bet that was before the end of the truck and suv era.