The Auto Industry Bailout Thread

What kicked me right in the balls was seeing that Robert Nardelli was the CEO/spokesperson for Chrysler.

Who's Robert Nardelli, you ask? The man who took the golden parachute concept, added bells, hookers, a wet bar, a swimming pool, and a Playstation 3 to his golden parachute: $210 million severance package to leave Home Depot. The story there is that he refused to have his annual salary (over $38 million) tied to the stock performance of Home Depot; knowing that shareholders would (rightfully) shit bricks over his refusal (and not the size of his pay already!?!?!?), he negotiated a "mutual agreement" to resign from Home Depot.

So he got shitcanned and took $210 million home for it. And now he's running Chrysler. Strangely enough, they suddenly need $7 Billion in emergency funds.

The breakdown is this: 2 weeks back, the 'big 3' were asking for $25 billion. Today, it's $34 billion. How it breaks down:

$7 Billion: Chrysler
$9 Billion: Ford
$18 Billion: GM

The strange bedfellows are coming to roost with the new "elite socialism" of our government. I just read a Michelle Malkin blog I agree with. Woah.
 
I'm not quite sure what we should do about this. My gut feeling is that we shouldn't give them the money because they've run themselves into the ground, and there's no guarantee that they would stick around even if we gave them the money. However, I do feel bad about all the people who would probably lose their jobs because of it. One thing I do think though is that they should just let Chrysler go, I think they were having problems well before the credit crunch, and I just don't see them as very competitive in the auto market anyway. I do like how all of a sudden they sold their jets and are willing to take 1 dollar salaries.:)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What kicked me right in the balls was seeing that Robert Nardelli was the CEO/spokesperson for Chrysler.

Who's Robert Nardelli, you ask? The man who took the golden parachute concept, added bells, hookers, a wet bar, a swimming pool, and a Playstation 3 to his golden parachute: $210 million severance package to leave Home Depot. The story there is that he refused to have his annual salary (over $38 million) tied to the stock performance of Home Depot; knowing that shareholders would (rightfully) shit bricks over his refusal (and not the size of his pay already!?!?!?), he negotiated a "mutual agreement" to resign from Home Depot.

So he got shitcanned and took $210 million home for it. And now he's running Chrysler. Strangely enough, they suddenly need $7 Billion in emergency funds.

The breakdown is this: 2 weeks back, the 'big 3' were asking for $25 billion. Today, it's $34 billion. How it breaks down:

$7 Billion: Chrysler
$9 Billion: Ford
$18 Billion: GM

The strange bedfellows are coming to roost with the new "elite socialism" of our government. I just read a Michelle Malkin blog I agree with. Woah.[/QUOTE]
I thought Ford wasn't asking for any money right now, they were just asking for a line of credit in case the other two manufacturers go down?
 
Ford's up on capitol hill today asking for money so far as I can tell.

It's all "lines of credit," of course. But let's not think silly thoughts like it'll ever get paid back by a single penny.
 
Let them fall, they will fall in the end anyway, this is just prolonging the inevitable for a bit.

But then again thats my answer to everything, if it's gonna burn, let it fucking burn.

The UK government tried to prop up a big Uk car manufacturer called Rover for years, they went belly up in the end. Slightly different situation but in the end they just couldn't compete as a manufacturer.
 
If GM and Chrysler merge, we would only need $27 billion.

Merger ON!

The downside of letting the big 3 fall is the possible loss of employment of 3 million people.

I wouldn't normally care, but I saw the state of Indiana has to borrow money from the Feds to pay unemployment before something this bad for economy occurs.

I think the bailout should be given akin to the AIG bailout. Put the interest rate 1000 basis points (10%) above the Libor rate.

This is a high risk personal loan to companies with shitty track records.

With the interest rate that high, the big 3 will have to sell off pieces of themselves to pay for the loan. That will create smaller companies that can absorb the loss of jobs. If the big 3 actually turn themselves around, they'll be able to refinance part or all of the loan at a lower interest rate.

All that and huge penalties for patently frivolous spending such as spa retreats.
 
I liked some of what Michael Moore had to say about the situation. There needs to be a lot of oversight-- better cars and make them hybrid as well. I don't know if bailing them out is the right response, but we might as well get a giant push for quality out of them if we do. Not that will happen either.
 
First of all, naturally I completely disagree with any sort of bailout for these clowns.

But what I find interesting here is the timing and the amount of money involved. The 1+ trillion mega-bailout has already happened and was pushed through very quickly in spite of public discontent. Then a month or so later and you've got this 35 billion drop-in-the-bucket. It's facing a lot more resistance than the mega-bailout did. It's almost like Congress wants to resist this one for a bit as a PR move. They fast-tracked the mega-bailout but then put this off so they could act like they're actually representing the people. Compare the amount of press this is getting to the mega-bailout. I've seen a lot more coverage of this piddly auto bailout. Again, piddly in comparison to the mega-bailout.

mega-bailout = 46" HDTV
auto-bailout = used 360 game
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well, if you define 'drop in the bucket' as 5% of the bucket, perhaps. But, yeah, I totally get your overall point.

I kinda wanted to see AIG fail. OTOH, I'd have one less reason to sneer at Manchester United if they had a different sponsor on their jerseys.
 
Let them fail. They don't deserve to be around. They're stagnant companies that do nothing but stifle innovation and competition because of how large they are.

They need to pay for their mismanagement.
 
GM has consistently won awards for innovation. I think that those against a bailout are generally ignoring the human costs of letting these companies fail. Copious billions out of the economy and an enormous ripple effect that makes $27B look like a drop in the backout.

That said, I'd make sure they had a plan to return to solvency and growth - as well, I'd force the unions into concessions for these bailout payments.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']penalties paid for with...more borrowed money from the government?[/quote]

:lol:

Yeah. It is tough to get blood out of stinking pile of crap.

However, the government can seize assets that aren't required for the company to survive.

Also, the CEOs can cosign the loans.

That last company jet doesn't make the assembly line any faster.

Those personal mansions or stock shares in other companies the CEO owns? Nope, Uncle Succubus owns them now.

Instead of the CEOs working for $1 per year, how about they have a net worth of $1 for 10 years?

There are lots of ways for the government to recoup losses.
 
We are really in a damned if we, damned if we don't scenario here.

Obviously, these 3 companies suck. They have done nothing but blow through $100's of billions over the past 20 years and what do they have to show for it? Nothing, but one horrible decision after another. They are dinosaurs in the industry. The markets and the fundamental failures of their core business operations say we let them fail.

However, if we let them fail we will lose between 1 and 3 million jobs. The US job market is in horrible shape as is so piling on another few million jobs in short order is certainly something we should avoid if possible.

But then again, if we do bail them out we are guaranteed to at least 1 merger, making it the big 2 instead of the big 3. This merger in itself will result in significant job cuts, estimates but a GM/Chrysler merger resulting in between 500k and 1 million job losses when all is said and done, so no matter how we proceed we are going to lose a significant number of jobs.

My bet is that the automakers basically get a loan to cover them for the next few quarters, basically long enough to pass the buck and final decision onto the next administration.
 
well if they declare bankruptcy it wouldnt be such a bad thing. They could restructure, change existing contracts, and hopefully it would force them to sell off parts to make themselves profitable.
 
Agreed. It's really damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'd rather just let them fail. If they didn't want to be in this situation they shouldn't have been making cars that were inferior to foreign auto makers (I didn't even bother going to any of these dealer's when shopping for my last two cars--bought a Subaru in 1999 and a Mazda last year, as nothing caught my eye on their sites or the review sites) and been smarter with their money.

But it's a lot of jobs lost, effects suppliers of parts to their factories etc. etc. so they may well be too big to fail.
 
My fiancee works for a company called Norplas that makes 90% of their bussiness through GM. Her boss has pretty much said they go under we go under. Given that I want the bail out.

Normally though I would be extremely torn between letting them fail and bailing them out. You hate to let all those people loose their jobs and you hate to let it have the effect on the economy it will. On the flip side you hate to reward bad behaviour, hate to set this precedent and you hate to do the thing that no one is thinking about......let congress do something like this under the guise that it is for one purpose when it really is for another. Chris Dodd was complaining recently about how the bail out money has been going to the wrong places and spent in ways congress didnt intend. A bail out for the Automotive industry would be intended to do one thing....but would somehow end up being spent on others.
 
Before I go to play games just going to add to this too that I have seen a number of reports suggesting that foreign auto makers from places like Japan are already waiting in the background to sweep in if they crash too. I am curious as to how long that process might take....but also what effect it might have on American psyche if Japanese/Korean companies buy out a company like GM.
 
If we bail them out now, why would the be motivated to change anything? It's basically like telling them that its fine that they don't adapt to the times and make fuel efficient cars. Oh, you don't know how to manage your company and make shitty cars at the same time? Sure, I'd love to give you billions of dollars to repeat the process all over again.

Let them fail. It will be better for everyone in the long run.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']OTOH, I'd have one less reason to sneer at Manchester United if they had a different sponsor on their jerseys.[/QUOTE]

There are SO many different reasons though, AIG is really the drop in the bucket on that one.

But anyway, let these jokers go into bankruptcy. They ran their businesses in idiotic ways. Remember, like Sony, they once were dominant in their field - the "Big Three" once had dominant market share in the U.S. Let them reorganize themselves if they can, and if they die so be it. We're already doing enough stupid things in propping up other companies that should have died/been sold off and don't need another boondoggle. A few weeks ago $25 billion, now $34 billion, next month $50 billion, then later next year another $50 billion is where I see this going if the doofuses who keep giving away our money to idiots who deserve to be prosecuted have their way.
 
i say let them fail.

but ya know what, we already handed out trillions to companies that shoudl fail as well, just give them the money and shut them up and they can fail again in a few more years. the 30 billion they want is a small dent in the hole that the government has created the past few months with the bailouts. fuck it.
 
I'm torn on the issue personally. From a business stand point, they can burn for all i care, the US auto industry has been in decline for years, this is just the culmination of their bad decisions.

On the other hand, a lot of people are employed by these companies and i don't really want all of those people to lose their jobs. Of course, the unions aren't willing to negotiate either, so i guess these people would rather lose their jobs outright than take a cut in pay.
 
Has anyone else thought about how strange it would be to have these companies gone?These are very old american companies that have survived tough times before, to have them no longer exist would seem so strange.

It'd be like Coke going out of business, an icon of american business would be gone.
 
I can't stomach how anyone would want to see these companies fail. They didn't fail because of lack of innovation, they failed because American's stopped buying cars and because they are competing at a heavy disadvantage. Let's not forget that they all have to pay massive amounts in health care and pensions as opposed to all these other auto makers, they have a much older work force than any of the other auto makers, they are not getting the tax breaks that many of these companies are getting for their plants in the south, etc.

Also when Chrysler got bailed out almost 30 years ago the taxpayers ended up making money.
 
Eh, american automobiles have been pretty stale for a while, seems like the foreign companies are the ones always taking chances on new things and the american companies just follow suit.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Before I go to play games just going to add to this too that I have seen a number of reports suggesting that foreign auto makers from places like Japan are already waiting in the background to sweep in if they crash too. I am curious as to how long that process might take....but also what effect it might have on American psyche if Japanese/Korean companies buy out a company like GM.[/QUOTE]

This is an interesting point. Even if the American car companies go bankrupt, other global companies would still be around to buy up the pieces, which would still probably save some jobs, right?
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I can't stomach how anyone would want to see these companies fail. They didn't fail because of lack of innovation, they failed because American's stopped buying cars and because they are competing at a heavy disadvantage.[/quote]

My main beef is with GM... You build one car and then make 4 others by slapping on a different badge. Then they make predominately SUVs and think they're golden for the rest of the time. Yeah... FAIL and they deserve to go down.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']ok...can someone tell me how the fuck can the auto industry fail just like that? Big oil won't stand for it![/QUOTE]

It's not the auto industry. They're are plenty of the automakers doing better and ready to fill the void left if these failed.

So big oil has no cause for concern.
 
This is disturbing not because of the recession but also globalization. Of course, globalization is not disturbing, what is, is the way Honda, Nissan, and Toyota etc.. compete with American companies like Ford and Chevy. It only adds to the ridiculous amount of importing we do for products. this is resulted by our U.S. companies trying to find cheaper labor by going overseas or exporting jobs. I'm not talking about the car industry exporting but the whole state of tons of U.S. labor jobs.

I say the only way to give them the bailout is to have them guarantee a specific production amount of cars that are extremely fuel efficient by a certain date. Of course if they didn't meet the date I'm not sure what could be done. A big factor here is simply that these foreign cars are cheaper and most of the time more fuel efficient. So what can the U.S. companies do other than build new more fuel efficient cars with different fuel technology. If they fail, the U.S. car industry doesn't look too good. You can't just let a major segment of business fail, foreign companies would come in and create incredible high barriers of entry for anyone new trying to come and compete.
 
You know one of the things I love about this is that congress for years has fought mandatory gas mileage law. They have voted down time and time again bill after bill that would require higher gas mileage in cars......now they have the nerve to stand up and talk down to the automotive industry that because they didnt raise efficiency they are failing.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I can't stomach how anyone would want to see these companies fail. They didn't fail because of lack of innovation, they failed because American's stopped buying cars and because they are competing at a heavy disadvantage. Let's not forget that they all have to pay massive amounts in health care and pensions as opposed to all these other auto makers, they have a much older work force than any of the other auto makers, they are not getting the tax breaks that many of these companies are getting for their plants in the south, etc.

Also when Chrysler got bailed out almost 30 years ago the taxpayers ended up making money.[/QUOTE]

Well in many ways our own government has created an atmosphere, or, more like allowed one to be created, where the automakers can not really compete with foreign car company's. The unions have them by the short and curly's and they can't make any headway on any negotiations. Their only choice is to outsource more and more to mexico etc, but they know that they will get little government help if they do that. They are really in a no win situation, and even with bailout money they will likely still fail - unless the unions are somehow forced to make massive concessions.

There are plenty of auto plants in this country doing just fine (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, etc), they just aren't American owned and they aren't in Michigan. So something is rotten in Denmark, so-to-speak. Something about the way American car company's choose, or are forced to, operate, just isn't working.
 
Good article from Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press columnist.

OK. It's a fantasy. But if I had five minutes in front of Congress last week, here's what I would've said:


Good morning. First of all, before you ask, I flew commercial. Northwest Airlines. Had a bag of peanuts for breakfast. Of course, that's Northwest, which just merged with Delta, a merger you, our government, approved -- and one that, inevitably, will lead to big bonuses for their executives and higher costs for us. You seem to be OK with that kind of business.

Which makes me wonder why you're so against our kind of business? The kind we do in Detroit. The kind that gets your fingernails dirty. The kind where people use hammers and drills, not keystrokes. The kind where you get paid for making something, not moving money around a board and skimming a percentage.

You've already given hundreds of billions to banking and finance companies -- and hardly demanded anything. Yet you balk at the very idea of giving $25 billion to the Detroit Three. Heck, you shoveled that exact amount to Citigroup -- $25 billion -- just weeks ago, and that place is about to crumble anyhow.

Does the word "hypocrisy" ring a bell?

Protecting the home turf?

Sen. Richard Shelby. Yes. You. From Alabama. You've been awfully vocal. You called the Detroit Three's leaders "failures." You said loans to them would be "wasted money." You said they should go bankrupt and "let the market work."

Why weren't you equally vocal when your state handed out hundreds of millions in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda and others to open plants there? Why not "let the market work"? Or is it better for Alabama if the Detroit Three fold so that the foreign companies -- in your state -- can produce more?

Way to think of the nation first, senator.

And you, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. You told reporters: "There's no reason to throw money at a problem that's not going to get solved."

That's funny, coming from such an avid supporter of the Iraq war. You've been gung ho on that for years. So how could you just sit there when, according to the New York Times, an Iraqi former chief investigator told Congress that $13 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds "had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste" by the Iraqi government?

That's 13 billion, senator. More than half of what the auto industry is asking for. Thirteen billion? Gone? Wasted?

Where was your "throwing money at a problem that's not going to get solved" speech then?

Watching over the bankers?

And the rest of you lawmakers. The ones who insist the auto companies show you a plan before you help them. You've already handed over $150 billion of our tax money to AIG. How come you never demanded a plan from it? How come when AIG blew through its first $85 billion, you quickly gave it more? The car companies may be losing money, but they can explain it: They're paying workers too much and selling cars for too little.

AIG lost hundred of billions in credit default swaps -- which no one can explain and which make nothing, produce nothing, employ no one and are essentially bets on failure.

And you don't demand a paragraph from it?

Look. Nobody is saying the auto business is healthy. Its unions need to adjust more. Its models and dealerships need to shrink. Its top executives have to downsize their own importance.

But this is a business that has been around for more than a century. And some of its problems are because of that, because people get used to certain wages, manufacturers get used to certain business models. It's easy to point to foreign carmakers with tax breaks, no union costs and a cleaner slate -- not to mention help from their home countries -- and say "be more like them."

But if you let us die, you let our national spine collapse. America can't be a country of lawyers and financial analysts. We have to manufacture. We need that infrastructure. We need those jobs. We need that security. Have you forgotten who built equipment during the world wars?

Besides, let's be honest. When it comes to blowing budgets, being grossly inefficient and wallowing in debt, who's better than Congress?

So who are you to lecture anyone on how to run a business?

Ask fair questions. Demand accountability. But knock it off with the holier-than-thou crap, OK? You got us into this mess with greed, a bad Fed policy and too little regulation. Don't kick our tires to make yourselves look better.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']You know one of the things I love about this is that congress for years has fought mandatory gas mileage law. They have voted down time and time again bill after bill that would require higher gas mileage in cars......now they have the nerve to stand up and talk down to the automotive industry that because they didnt raise efficiency they are failing.[/QUOTE]

This is an important and relevant point.

[quote name='CaseyRyback']They didn't fail because of lack of innovation, they failed because American's stopped buying cars and because they are competing at a heavy disadvantage.[/quote]

Let's spread blame where it's due. Like MSI's point, I drove past a dealership the other day and saw a Ford Shitmobile (like whatever they make now that's around a Focus or cheaper) with "34 MPG!" marked on the windshield. That tells me all I need to know about innovation in the US auto industry. I bought my current car in 2001. It gets 32 city and 36/37 highway. It's a Honda Civic, mid-range (and MT, which I *think* helps the mileage). But it's a 7 year old car (150K shy of the 250K I plan on putting on it). And Ford's just now getting around to competing with 2001 foreign autos with their low-end cars. This aspect has nothing to do with the current economy.

American automakers banked their futures (wrongly, we see) on SUVs and pick'mup trucks. Big Freudian Dickmobiles. HIGHLY profitable dickmobiles, but their financial security was premised on the American peoples' willingness to abandon any concern about energy usage and environmental destruction. And they were right; until that environmental destruction came with a marginally higher economic cost in high gas prices. Suddenly, the big 3 weren't selling autos much at all, but more importantly, they weren't selling their high-profit dickmobiles. Which is where their innovation was focused, primarily.

GM's HUGE announcement this year was the "Volt." 12 gallons = 400 miles in this car (in a hybrid). Again, that's not innovation. That's being able to run a 4 minute mile, but being the 5,000th person to do it, and doing it 40 years after the first person to do it. Impressive? Maybe. But it's not 'innovation' by any stretch of the imagination. It's playing catch up, and doing so poorly.

Let's not forget that they all have to pay massive amounts in health care and pensions as opposed to all these other auto makers, they have a much older work force than any of the other auto makers, they are not getting the tax breaks that many of these companies are getting for their plants in the south, etc.
Click to expand...

An argument I ask students in my intro class (while discussing globalization) is to tell me what an "American automobile" is (if I get that teaching job in Detroit I may give up this part of my lecture ;)). Toyota and Honda employ thousands (tens of?) in the Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky area. Most Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US. GM builds a large number of autos in Mexico, and their parts are manufactured elsewhere. What's it mean to "buy American" in this day and age? To keep Robert Nardelli fat and happy by buying a lunk of shit Chrysler? Or to keep Billy Bob in southern Kentucky employed by buying a Toyota Camry?

But do you think that those people building Camrys are paid less, or have fewer benefits?

Also when Chrysler got bailed out almost 30 years ago the taxpayers ended up making money.
Click to expand...

You got me there. In 7th/8th grade I read and presented on a biography of Lee Iacocca (I told y'all I had a sordid past as a conservative republican. I just happened to be 13.). He did turn around Chrysler magnificently during that time. Can they do it again? I don't know; we need to rekindle some of that rah-rah screw-the-japs buy-american-autos sentiment that we had in the 1980's in order to do so. And since they employ so many Americans, I don't see that happening.

But maybe we'll get a remake of the film "Gung Ho" out of it. Which is cool, I guess.
 
Interesting article.

He dances around the real answer though, but doesn't seem to want to accept it; that Congress works for the banks, and has since before any of us were born. So there should be no real surprise to anyone, at the double standard.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']GM's HUGE announcement this year was the "Volt." 12 gallons = 400 miles in this car (in a hybrid). Again, that's not innovation. That's being able to run a 4 minute mile, but being the 5,000th person to do it, and doing it 40 years after the first person to do it. Impressive? Maybe. But it's not 'innovation' by any stretch of the imagination. It's playing catch up, and doing so poorly.
[/QUOTE]

I think your thinking is a bit off on the Volt. Can any other mass produced vehicle drive 40 miles without using a drop of gas? I know with my commute I would never need to go to the pump again if I had a Volt.
 
[quote name='freezedried74']I think your thinking is a bit off on the Volt. Can any other mass produced vehicle drive 40 miles without using a drop of gas? I know with my commute I would never need to go to the pump again if I had a Volt.[/QUOTE]

Fiancee and her company have also been very impresed with the Volt(they recently were given contracts to manufacture parts for it). They are a Canadian owned company run out of Ohio and most of her bosses are canucks. They have a lot of bad to say about GM....but everyone seems to be truly impressed with the volt.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']ok...can someone tell me how the fuck can the auto industry fail just like that? Big oil won't stand for it![/QUOTE]
Big Oil can bail them out, then. The Big Three provided them with the cushy gas prices that bought their mansions and jets, so it's only fair.
 
[quote name='freezedried74']I think your thinking is a bit off on the Volt. Can any other mass produced vehicle drive 40 miles without using a drop of gas? I know with my commute I would never need to go to the pump again if I had a Volt.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. So it's quite useful if you never drive more than 40 miles b/w charges. A good start, I suppose.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Is the General Motors EV1 really ever going to be mass produced?[/QUOTE]

fixed.

I want one of these:
759px-Think_City_2007.jpg


Norway: the new dominant force in the auto industry.

And GM owns Vauxhall? Who the fuck buys Vauxhalls these days?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This is an important and relevant point.

An argument I ask students in my intro class (while discussing globalization) is to tell me what an "American automobile" is (if I get that teaching job in Detroit I may give up this part of my lecture ;)). Toyota and Honda employ thousands (tens of?) in the Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky area. Most Toyotas sold in the US are made in the US. GM builds a large number of autos in Mexico, and their parts are manufactured elsewhere. What's it mean to "buy American" in this day and age? To keep Robert Nardelli fat and happy by buying a lunk of shit Chrysler? Or to keep Billy Bob in southern Kentucky employed by buying a Toyota Camry?

[/quote]

Here is an interesting video from the most advanced Ford plant even constructed:

http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

Ford is also building a plant in Mexico to build a variety of new models, including the Fiesta ECOnetic, a sub-compact diesel gas-saver, which isn't slated for the US market. The tab for this new plant: $3 billion.
 
Well one thing that the big 3 have said would come from this next round or restructuring is a move toward a global product lineup, as opposed to how they operate now where they all sell different autos in each global marketplace.

I believe the Volt is slated for "production" in 2010 but from what I've heard that production won't be anywhere close to the levels of your average family sedan like the Accord or something. In the grand scheme of things, it will probably still be a relatively low volume auto for many years and the first model years are likely to depreciate like crazy since I think we will see dramatic improvements in battery life over the next few years.
 
Geo made a fantastic car, back before Chevy bought and destroyed them. My '95 Prizm is about 14 years old, still getting 30+/gallon.. sure it's tiny and not much of a family vehicle, but i've had so little repairs and I'm getting to 150k on it.

I couldn't say the same to my 94 Escort, which litterly suicided/fried it's own alternator and took down every wire in a 3 foot radius while it was OFF in the parking lot...

The big 3 failed to innovate, and they deserve to get punished.


I think the Government should hold that 25.. err wait now 34 billion and put it in bailing out the workers that now have no jobs. Let them go bankrupt. They can't continue to operate as they are, and they are too big, time to shrink.

It may have a rolling affect, but we can't continue to let them fail as such, they should have changed, they should have made the right choices, Bankrupcy is the option to making bad choices.

I say Ford should swallow GM and let them fire people, hopefully all upper management. It's not the workers in the factory that got them there, it was the fucking idiots above them that did.

We should have been getting hybrid vehicles since Toyota and Honda did... but we didn't. We're america and we made the damn car and we couldn't innovate and develope better tech before another company could have...

it's embarrassing, and they don't deserve a bailout. They don't deserve a hand out.

It's time to realize that the big three should have had to start doing something long time ago, they knew it, but they thought they too were like banks and could be rescued.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Fair enough. So it's quite useful if you never drive more than 40 miles b/w charges. A good start, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, we've had discussions on this here several times. Electric cars will probably never appeal to me due to the limited ranges. Especially these early one's with such small ranges.

I like the peace of mind of being able to drive however far I want and knowing there's tons of gas stations along the way to refuel. Electric cars/quick charging/battery swapping etc. is a long way from offering the same kind of convenience/accessibility if they ever get there.

Now decent plug in hybrids I'd be interested in for sure. Could use no gas on my commute to and from work, but can drive however far I want on gas at other times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top