GM closing nine plants

[chad thomas]

Vic, are you sure Olds got phased out? My mom just bought a new Olds Bravada.

I must say the best cars I ever owned were GM products. But they were all 60s and 70s models. I racked up almost 400,000 on my last Olds and the only work I had to do was exhaust work (installed headers, a must on all my rides) and I had to re-build my tranny at around 300k. I have delt with a lot of fleet vehicles in the last 20 years and I must say quality took a real dive in the 80s. I saw a lot of late 70s trucks outlast 80s trucks (GM and Ford). They seem to have produced a better quality vehicle (trucks anyway) in the later 90s but in my opinion the 70s produced higher quality then anything sience.

Right now I have 6 chevys and 3 fords in my fleet. For the amount of abuse they take they are holding up very well, the chevys that is. The fords are falling apart. It's always the little things with the fords but it's one thing after another. Not to say the chevys are perfect, when they fail it's usualy something major like fuel injection failures, head gaskets and such. But I would rather have one major failure then constant minor failures like the fords seem to have.

Not that I'm an expert or anything but my experience with work trucks makes me favor Chevys and when I go shopping for replacements in my fleet it will be at a GM dealer.

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

It's interesting that Olds and Plymouth have gone away. Their brand names had such little value that their owners ditched them completely. While this was going on, Toyota lauched an entirely new brand, Scion, Honda started selling full size pickups and SUVs, and Kia and Hyundai sell a full line of cars.

Not me, I have a 69' Plymouth Sport Fury that I plan on keeping till the day I die.[8D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

It's interesting that Olds and Plymouth have gone away. Their brand names had such little value that their owners ditched them completely. While this was going on, Toyota lauched an entirely new brand, Scion, Honda started selling full size pickups and SUVs, and Kia and Hyundai sell a full line of cars.

It's called market shift. Going back to the '50's and '60's there were four auto manufacturers in the US, GM, Ford, Chrysler, and American Motors. Foreign auto competition was so small it was just considered a novelty at that time. Starting in the '70's, with the gas prices suddenly jumping to three times what it was, people quickly shifted to wanting more economical running cars. Unfortunately, this coincided with a trend in the US manufacturers toward a better "bottom line" and they did it at the expense of quality, cars literally fell apart off the showroom floor. Imported cars, primarily from Japan, with noticibly better quality and much better gas mileage experienced big sales jumps. Although the quality has equalized, the reputation from this period has been hard to shake. Plus now, there's a LOT more than four companies making and selling cars in the US. So of course, each US company will have a smaller "piece of the pie" than they had when there were only four. And the foreign companies will work harder to get a bigger piece. That's the capitalist system.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Just for the record who does GM own? Chevy, ...

I'm not sure if they have bought out any foreign manufacturers like Ford and Chrysler have.

Chrysler didn't buy out any foreign manufacturers, they were bought out themselves by Daimler-Benz. They made their new name Daimler-Chrysler as a PR point.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Actually Tom, I was aware about who bought who in the Chrysler deal, but I was too lazy to type it that way. [oops][sigh][;)]

Now Chad has me wondering about Oldsmobile, anyone know that story?

[chad thomas]

BTW My moms Olds is a 04' I think.

[chad thomas]

I just checked GMs website and there is no listings for Olds so I guess it is gone. To bad, I have owned a couple of Oldsmobiles and both were great cars. As I mentioned my last one almost hit 400k, but a rod started knocking and I had an engine fire (my own dumb a$$ fault) and is now history. Now I've got my eyes out for replacement, but a 70s mdl in good condition not a newer one.

[richardy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005



Now Chad has me wondering about Oldsmobile, anyone know that story?

2004 was the last model year for Oldsmobile.

[Junctionfan]

There is a "mr.fix-it" type guy who is trying to repair the sorry state of Nortel. I can't remember his name-I believe he is from Scandanavian or Swiss. At any rate, maybe GM should get him and chuck the useless executives that caused the company to head for the crappers to begin with.

[Anonymous]

There probaly closing the plants because they are puting tomuch in their vehicles for the same price, the GM employee sale which brought in alot of money in the short run but long term investments are fried, people are going to foreign cars more better fuel economy with same power and/or speed,etc...
I saw something in the newspaper this morning but can't recall anything tho.
They need to straighten up and get to making what people want in order to survive.
I dont mean any disrespect but this is what i think.
[8D][:D][:)][8]

[edblysard]

I am surprised that anyone would take that statement, and some how turn it into "they got it together", which is not what I said at all.
Re-read it...I said they were not in the toilet...which is altogether different from "having it together"...

American auto makers have to adapt, and get something going on some serious research on the next generation/ hybrid/alternate fuel if they are going to survive beyond the next decade.


Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Same unions work at Ford and Chrysler, and those two are not in the toilet...
As for foreign autos...most of your Toyotas and Hondas are made right here, in Tennessee and Kentucky, and Toyota is building a plant here in Texas.
All built by American auto workers, all paying those extreme union wages.

Ford and Chrysler both took a look at what they would be paying out in retirement, benefits and such well over a decade ago, and decided to buy out who they could right then, and replace them with robotics and automated manufactures, then streamlined how they build cars, introduced new designs, and instituted quality controls that makes GM’s look so shabby by comparison.

So, two of the big three paid attention when they should have, one of them decided that business as usual was the way to go...
Daimler Chrysler is blowing GM away, Ford Trucks out sell GM...Go figure whose management teams were on the ball and looked ahead, and whose were more worried about their green fees than their business...

I am surprised anyone would point to Ford and Chyrsler as examples of automobile manufactuers who have "got it together".

While Ford's problems may not be as deep as GMs, they certainly still have a lot of their own house cleaning to do. Ford's North American operations lost $1 billion dollars in just the third quarter this year alone. You don't have to search too on the internet to find expert predictions of Ford's own bankrupcty.

As for Chysler, recently their new products may be reflecting the benefits of their merger with Mercedes. However, it is safe to say the marriage with Chrysler has not had the same positive effect on Mercedes. Ever since the marriage, with the company's focus on improving Chrysler, the reputation of the Mercedes cars division has taken a hit, especially in their reputation for reliability. Recently, the combined value of Mercedes and Chrylser slipped below the value of just Mercedes before the merger. I doubt that wasn't a by-product of the merger the shareholders were looking for.

[SALfan]

UP829 - Actually sometime in the '60's or early '70's GM flirted with having 60% of the US market, and they may have made it. In those days, GM products were just built better than Fords or Chryslers.

TomDiehl - In the '50's there were more than 4 domestic automakers. Hudson and Nash combined to form AMC in 1954. Studebaker bought the remnants of Packards sometime in the mid-50's, then Studebaker died in 1966.

My complaint about GM is that all the brands are built on the same assembly lines using the same parts, except for grilles and taillights. What's the difference? Used to, if you paid the extra money for a Buick or an Oldsmobile, you got a different engine at least and different ride and handling characteristics. Nowadays you have to look to tell the difference, because all GM cars are built from the same parts bin.

[PigFarmer1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

It is amazing that GM is going to take over three year to make these cuts. They are not facing bankruptcy in three years but this year.

I apologize if you have already gotten a response, but I'm not going to read through four pages of pro and anti union comments.[:0] Anywho...GM is contractually obligated to not make these cuts until such a time as was specified in the agreements with the UAW. Even though it sounds crazy, that's the way it goes.

[mnwestern]

Just goes to show you that high-priced management is usually the biggest bunch of dumb----- known to man. Here was GM, and other U.S. automakers, cranking out big, ole gas-hog SUVs and pickups (actually rolling battleships) because they are short-term cash cows, when foreign makers were putting research into the cars of tomorrow — hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, light composites, etc. and raking in the increased sales as people finally switch to efficient vehicles when prices went through the roof.

Apparently, GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler execs were not invited to VP Cheney's little pow wow with energy execs back in 2001 when they mapped out the strategy to ratchet up gas prices to increase oil company profits to record levels (if that wasn't the plan, how did oil company's turn in record third quarter profits when they were said to have suffered so much physical damage from hurricanes.) If the carmakers had known that, they would have moved quickly to quit building battleships that will rust in the dealers lots (Oh, Heck, even I don't believe GM officials could move quickly on anything except running for their bonus checks.)

Some how, some way foreign carmakers figured that prices were only going to run up. Perhaps they actually believe what most experts in science say — that we are nearing the point when oil production actually starts to dip - permanently. Oh, that's right again. The Bush administration doesn't like to hear the truth and kills the messagers.

So, GM will not be the last American automaker to face bankruptcy. Why do we think that in the future we'll still build cars here. We build very little else. Everything is sent off to Asia, or Asians come back here to show us how it is done cheaply, without the old, crushing union contracts that are milking the auto industry just like the heritage air carriers.

[samfp1943]

Oldsmobile, gone in 2004 and Spring Hill scheduled to close, Saturn will be gone in 2006. Maybe thay can sell that plant to Nissan who needs the space to build vehicles. You might say that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is at work in the auto industry.. Adapt or die.
GM on it's way to being another Fallen Flag.

[Anonymous]

Did you know back in the 20's Republic trucks were in hot competition with Ford. In fact one year (1924?) they out sold Fords, and now you can't find Republic trucks. They got sold to a fire engine manufacturer.

History aside, don't panic about hybrids, good old American Ingenuity will come through and, we will have a better hybrid. In fact I will bet on it.

[GP40-2]

A few thoughts:

1) EMD was not a "crown jewel" of GM. Even when it ruled the railroad environment, EMD's revenues and profits were insignificant to GM. For the past 10-15 years, it was a money loser for GM.

2) GMAC: There are a lot of rumors flying aroud Wall Street that GMAC will be the next divsion GM will sell off to remain afloat. Seems those pesky retirees just aren't dying off fast enough. Of course, GMAC is about the only thing GM gas left that actually makes a profit, so the future dosen't look to bright for the General.

3) Ford went down the same road as GM with the large SUV's, however, the last figures I saw for Ford legacy/health care costs was only around $800 per vehicle (half of GM's $1500 per vehicle). Ford will also stop supplying rental car companies with cut-rate vehicles. That destroyed the resale value of used Ford's. For example, the new 500 and Fusion sedans will not be sold in large numbers to rental/fleet buyers. This alone has increased the projected used value of those products close to Toyota/Honda used values. Most of Ford's new cars have been highly received by auto reviewers-the new Fusion has been reported to have Honda quality and European driving manners. That is something that GM has never figured out how to do in a mass production car.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom
[TomDiehl - In the '50's there were more than 4 domestic automakers. Hudson and Nash combined to form AMC in 1954. Studebaker bought the remnants of Packards sometime in the mid-50's, then Studebaker died in 1966.

When I was 2 years old, I really wasn't into cars. Also, notice I said '50's AND '60's

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cmeastern

Some how, some way foreign carmakers figured that prices were only going to run up. Perhaps they actually believe what most experts in science say — that we are nearing the point when oil production actually starts to dip - permanently. Oh, that's right again. The Bush administration doesn't like to hear the truth and kills the messagers.

The gasoline prices in the US were always WAY below the rest of the world. This is probably the only country that didn't worry about gas mileage in their cars. Foreign car manufacturers were designing for their market.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

A few thoughts:

1) EMD was not a "crown jewel" of GM. Even when it ruled the railroad environment, EMD's revenues and profits were insignificant to GM. For the past 10-15 years, it was a money loser for GM.

[:D] C'mon, you think I was being serious?

[andrewjonathon]

Maybe, just maybe the GM executives planned the Avian flu and it is on the way to rescue GM. If predictions are right, it could kill millions of people. Assuming it comes to the US and takes out enough of those "pesky" GM retirees that will take care of the pension problem.[:)] Of course it is a risky business for the executives as it could also take them out at the same time.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

Give some credit to GM's execs for selling EMD when they did. If they tried to sell it now, it would be going for a fire sale price.

Which makes one ask the question, was EMD doing that badly? I thought EMD was one of the few divisions of GM doing fair to middlin well. I figured EMD got sold to private owners simply to allow GM to focus closer on automobile and truck production.

1. If EMD were being sold now, a potential buyer would perceive GM as being in a weak position, desperate to raise cash, and would likely be more aggressive
2. We're further into the economic cycle and sales will probably start tailing off
3. Senior executives doubtlessly have more pressing matters than negotiating the sale of a minor division. Better that they got the sale of EMD out of the way

[eastside]

As I recall it, the central issue of the blowup between GM and its unions in the ‘90s was outsourcing. In those days, outsourcing had nothing to do with foreign countries. It meant being able to use non-GM sources for parts. GM settled by caving in to the unions by offering generous compensation for lost jobs. This was extended in the crazy way in which GM structured the Delphi spin-off by ceding operational control yet remaining liable to pick up the pieces if it failed, canceling out almost all the benefits! GM’s every attempt to implement fundamental changes to its production processes seemed to have been either stymied or diluted at every turn. The ‘90s were a lost decade for reforming GM. A whole book could (and should) be written about this episode.

[Anonymous]

What new name do you suppose is going to be the future crown name for locomotives on the American railroads?

Honda
MIC - "Made In China" - to replace EMD
Sushimoto
Suzuki
Toyota
Yamaha

I despise the future for anything anymore!!! We were sold out as a nation, by our politicians, to tird world nations. NAFTA anyone?? CAFTA's next.

I'm just going to watch my train videos and sink back into the days of old - the 50's the 60's ..... when the chrome was still thick and the women were women ... when a team of ALCOs would go racing by with black diesel smoke filling the air and the fuel spilling out all over the gutter ... and there was no such thing as an environmentalist who is an "environmentalist " only because he could never make an honest living nor could he fill a baker's shoes.

Does some minute part of our politicians' concept of a futuristic brave new world involve us coming to a stop in our Hondas/Toyotas at a railroad crossing (signal parts & accessories made in China, Japan, & Taiwan) while waiting for two Sushimotos and a Honda locomotive pulling 100 corrugated aluminum frame fiberglass body railcars made in Taiwan, to come slithering by??? Is this "progress"?

[greyhounds]

As for locomotives, GE seems to be doing all right these days. For a long time they've had an emphasis on developing good management. (It doesn't just grow on trees.) It seems to have paid off for years.

Other bright spots (although not as bright in US manufacturing include Boeing, which seems to have righted its ship and my hometown favorite, Caterpillar.

[Chris30]

Kick 'em when they're down...

As mentioned previously, I'm also surprised that the GM plant in Janesville, WI survived. It's an old plant that has been in the cross-hairs for some time. Without the GM plant in Janesville, I'm guessing that the UP would give up and sell the Harvard & Cottage Grove subs to the Wisconsin Southern.

I didn't see it posted anywhere else... I wonder how much politics had to do with a plant closing or staying open?

CC

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Not me, I have a 69' Plymouth Sport Fury that I plan on keeping till the day I die.[8D]

I own a '68 Plymouth Satellite Sport Convertiable.....440....WOW what a car. I'll never sell that baby if I can help it. [:D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Not me, I have a 69' Plymouth Sport Fury that I plan on keeping till the day I die.[8D]

I own a '68 Plymouth Satellite Sport Convertiable.....440....WOW what a car. I'll never sell that baby if I can help it. [:D]

I'm guessing you don't use that as a commuter car, especially with today's gas prices.

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Not me, I have a 69' Plymouth Sport Fury that I plan on keeping till the day I die.[8D]

I own a '68 Plymouth Satellite Sport Convertiable.....440....WOW what a car. I'll never sell that baby if I can help it. [:D]

Sweet !!!!![8D]

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Chris30

Kick 'em when they're down...

As mentioned previously, I'm also surprised that the GM plant in Janesville, WI survived. It's an old plant that has been in the cross-hairs for some time. Without the GM plant in Janesville, I'm guessing that the UP would give up and sell the Harvard & Cottage Grove subs to the Wisconsin Southern.

I didn't see it posted anywhere else... I wonder how much politics had to do with a plant closing or staying open?

CC

While the Janesville operation has been around for a long time, a few years back GM put a ton of money into the facility. I have an iron worker as a tax customer and he usually comes with at least a half dozen W-2's a year from the different contractors he has worked for during the year. Back just a few years he had two years of only one W-2 from the contractor doing work on the Janesville plant.

My reading of the business press isn't as great as it used to be, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that politics had anything to do with the selections for closing.

One would think that they not only looked at a ranking of "performance" for the different plants, but also looked at what would be left in terms of the efficiency of the configuration of the remaining plants.

Of course, these day, one might question how much time is ever given to thinking.

Jay