On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:37:58 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q, according
to the GM guy.

Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass.
GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year.
Toyota-heads and Honda-heads and most Californians don't have a clue
about the real automotive world.
GM will survive as GM. Chevrolet won't go away.
Same for Ford.
Don't know about Chrysler.
Come back next year when you're sober.


To whom are you speaking? I don't own a Japanese car.

No, you're the Californian who called Salty's lame "analysis" nice.
It was merely a shallow diatribe.
How he thought up this fantasy of "start-ups" replacing GM, Ford and
Chrysler is especially wacky. Drugs, I assume.

If GM is so
successful, then how come it's got it's hand out?

Reminiscent of someone else here. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I never called them "so successful."

I'm betting GM will not
survive, at least not as it is now.

Of course they will be different companies, bailout or not.
In fact, should Congress refuse them money, which would be fine with
me, GM could squeeze the unions and close/sell off their Cadillac,
Pontiac, and various SUV plants and remain profitable selling pickup
trucks and their best selling passenger cars. Ford could make an
equivalent move.
This is assuming their management has the balls.
The UAW workers are on the ropes, and they don't have exec jets,
caviar, resorts, and "high class" hookers paid for with expense
accounts to give up. But they do need their jobs, not having salted
away millions as the execs have.
I don't understand Chrysler - at all, so have no suggestions.


Ford is in better shape, but who knows.
This would be the second bailout for Chrysler.

Here's something below to read. It's very basic stuff.
It's plain silly to talk of putting a fork in the U.S./Canadian Big 3
and "start-ups" will just pick up the pieces.
It ain't gonna happen. None of that.
Like I said, it takes the clueless to propose the ridiculous, and a
Californian to stamp it as a "nice analysis."
I'm surprised that I'm beginning to appreciate Neal's analytical
skills as the best thing on this group.
Even when he's obviously drunk.
Ok, I'm done with this.
Plenty more of this on the auto groups.
I don't endorse all the facts below, but having had long interest in
the subject, they ring fairly true.
My apologies if I seem rude. If you prefer, imagine it's only because
my Chevy broke down.

--Vic

************************************************** ***********************
http://www.freep.com/article/20081117/COL14/811170379

The debate over aid to the Detroit-based automakers is awash with
half-truths and misrepresentations that are endlessly repeated by
everyone from members of Congress to journalists. Here are six myths
about the companies and their vehicles, and the reality in each case.

Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their vehicles.

Reality
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million
vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the
world.
GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States
last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far
this year.
Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling
9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.
Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3
million vehicles in the United States last year.
Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in
2007 and so far this year.

Myth No. 2
They build unreliable junk.

Reality
The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone.
Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par
with good Japanese automakers."
The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick,
Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln
brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi,
BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.
Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan.
Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord
and Toyota Camry.

Myth No. 3
They build gas-guzzlers.

Reality
All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental
Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway.
The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the
highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most
fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as
the most efficient Toyota Corolla.
The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel
economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient
non-hybrid Honda Civic.
A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact
is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

Myth No. 4
They already got a $25-billion bailout.

Reality
None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a
year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future
vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of
operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown
that's killing them now.

Myth No. 5
GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

Reality
The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota,
Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on
pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically
profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient
full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel
economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

Myth No. 6
They don't build hybrids.

Reality
The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM
each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several
more due to hit the road in early 2009.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:37:58 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..


Nice analysis. Actually, the "limping along" would only last 1Q,
according
to the GM guy.

Typical analysis by a Jap car owner who has his head up his ass.
GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year.
Toyota-heads and Honda-heads and most Californians don't have a clue
about the real automotive world.
GM will survive as GM. Chevrolet won't go away.
Same for Ford.
Don't know about Chrysler.
Come back next year when you're sober.


To whom are you speaking? I don't own a Japanese car.

No, you're the Californian who called Salty's lame "analysis" nice.
It was merely a shallow diatribe.
How he thought up this fantasy of "start-ups" replacing GM, Ford and
Chrysler is especially wacky. Drugs, I assume.

Yes, I'm a californian. Is that the ad hominim attack you were planning? His
analysis seemed pretty accurate to me. If you disagree, that's your right.

If GM is so
successful, then how come it's got it's hand out?

Reminiscent of someone else here. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I never called them "so successful."

You said, "GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year." Are you claiming that
isn't being successful? Seems pretty successful to me.


I'm betting GM will not
survive, at least not as it is now.

Of course they will be different companies, bailout or not.
In fact, should Congress refuse them money, which would be fine with
me, GM could squeeze the unions and close/sell off their Cadillac,
Pontiac, and various SUV plants and remain profitable selling pickup
trucks and their best selling passenger cars. Ford could make an
equivalent move.

Maybe, maybe not. Pickup sales are way down.

This is assuming their management has the balls.
The UAW workers are on the ropes, and they don't have exec jets,
caviar, resorts, and "high class" hookers paid for with expense
accounts to give up. But they do need their jobs, not having salted
away millions as the execs have.
I don't understand Chrysler - at all, so have no suggestions.


Ford is in better shape, but who knows.
This would be the second bailout for Chrysler.

Here's something below to read. It's very basic stuff.
It's plain silly to talk of putting a fork in the U.S./Canadian Big 3
and "start-ups" will just pick up the pieces.
It ain't gonna happen. None of that.
Like I said, it takes the clueless to propose the ridiculous, and a
Californian to stamp it as a "nice analysis."

Oh screw you. Are you in a fly-over state?

I'm surprised that I'm beginning to appreciate Neal's analytical
skills as the best thing on this group.

Neal's analysis only has the first four letters going for him. You must be a
non-Californian to be unable to recognize this.

Myth No. 1
Nobody buys their vehicles.

So, they're successful, but not compared to.... ?

Myth No. 2
They build unreliable junk.

Yeah, they have better cars than in the 80s/90s. Still crap. I've owned
newer ones. Not interested.

Myth No. 3
They build gas-guzzlers.

And, they fought the CAFE standards every mile of the way.

Myth No. 4
They already got a $25-billion bailout.

Never heard this one... I believe they were trying for the financial bailout
justification.

Myth No. 5
GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

They just can't seem to react fast enough.

Myth No. 6
They don't build hybrids.

Sure. And, no one buys them or trusts the companies will be around.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:29:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:



You said, "GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year." Are you claiming that
isn't being successful? Seems pretty successful to me.

WTF? You just agreed with Salty to put a fork in them.
And we happen to be talking about pending bankruptcy.
Neal is not just seeming more analytical, but more honest.


Like I said, it takes the clueless to propose the ridiculous, and a
Californian to stamp it as a "nice analysis."

Oh screw you. Are you in a fly-over state?

Of course. But anybody who knows anything about auto sales knows that
California is heavily skewed Asian in cars, and so it follows that the
perceptions of Californians regarding the wider world of automobiles
are off when they simply look around.
I suspect you fell into that trap.
Nothing personal against Californians.
But I invite you to take it that way if you wish.
Enough. And this time I mean it!

--Vic

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:52:18 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:29:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:



You said, "GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year." Are you claiming that
isn't being successful? Seems pretty successful to me.

WTF? You just agreed with Salty to put a fork in them.
And we happen to be talking about pending bankruptcy.
Neal is not just seeming more analytical, but more honest.


Like I said, it takes the clueless to propose the ridiculous, and a
Californian to stamp it as a "nice analysis."

Oh screw you. Are you in a fly-over state?

Of course. But anybody who knows anything about auto sales knows that
California is heavily skewed Asian in cars, and so it follows that the
perceptions of Californians regarding the wider world of automobiles
are off when they simply look around.
I suspect you fell into that trap.
Nothing personal against Californians.
But I invite you to take it that way if you wish.
Enough. And this time I mean it!

--Vic

Poor Vic. The world changed and he got left behind.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:29:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:



You said, "GM outsold Toyota worldwide last year." Are you claiming that
isn't being successful? Seems pretty successful to me.

WTF? You just agreed with Salty to put a fork in them.
And we happen to be talking about pending bankruptcy.
Neal is not just seeming more analytical, but more honest.


I'm just pointing out how silly you sound. If you don't get that, then I
think you should listen to Neal more often.

Like I said, it takes the clueless to propose the ridiculous, and a
Californian to stamp it as a "nice analysis."

Oh screw you. Are you in a fly-over state?

Of course. But anybody who knows anything about auto sales knows that
California is heavily skewed Asian in cars, and so it follows that the
perceptions of Californians regarding the wider world of automobiles
are off when they simply look around.
I suspect you fell into that trap.
Nothing personal against Californians.
But I invite you to take it that way if you wish.
Enough. And this time I mean it!

So, that's why I and most of my friends don't own asian cars. Your logic
isn't. I think we in California do just fine. Not my fault if you can't
handle it.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


I'm surprised that I'm beginning to appreciate Neal's analytical
skills as the best thing on this group.


I've been saying that for almost a decade. The man is brilliant!

On 20-Nov-2008, "Charles Momsen" wrote:

says US carmaker failure could cut 4% from the GDP. But the cost of a
bailout is no less than 6% of GDP!

No brainer!

Let them go bankrupt!

Agreed, but for a different reason -

1) The fallout would be 4 or 5 to one in support industries and services,
but who cares, we can all work at Walmart for minimum wage!

2) All production firms in the U.S. MUST move to low cost third world
countries for survival and export to the US - their only onbigation is to
the stockholders. The U.S. marketplace will have the economic viability of
Peru in a year or two but red China, India, South America are on the rise.
GM overseas will survive well.

This collpase has been in the making for 25 years and is due. GM, Ford, etc.
MUST offer vehicles in the U.S. in the same way as Toyota, Honda, etc.,
i.e., by doing final assy. in the U.S. and calling it an "American made"
vehicle. Americans are really gullible; if they believe that with Toyota,
why not GM? The market will adjust in product to suit the resulting economy.
(likley shoddy Chinese bicycles) "Americans" deserve no better any way -
they created the debacle.