Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,055
6
Yahooville S.C.
Fords styling has become for a lack of a better term FUGLY, GM cant seem to ever plan further ahead then today but with that said I just rented a GT6 and was pretty happy with what I saw and drove though again the styling was luke warm.
Not much talk here about Chrysler and Dodge and must say if I was going to buy soon the Challenger draws my attention big time.
 

joeshell383

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2006
792
0
The American government should not intervene with any of this. Let the market ride itself, the so called free market should be run like everyday life: the strong and smart outlast the dumb and weak. Make companies more competitive by not intervening so big companies aren't so concerned about ignoring people's needs by making stupid business decisions because the government will just bail them out. Do this, and prices will go down from the competitiveness, people buy more due to cheaper prices, and the economy is much stronger.

let the market decide I have to agree.

Wrong. The auto industry is one of the most representative examples of the pitfalls a high-barrier-to-entry oligopoly. From the beginning of the industry to the present, REAL innovations have been few and far between. Year after year, we get new models, but they are just facelifts and refreshes. Same transmissions, same internal combustion engines, same everything. With all the history, resources, and experiences not one firm has come out with a real alternative energy car (in 100 years!). Competitors who have tried to enter (a la Tesla) are not able to even get a toe in the door. If the big three fail there will be even fewer competitors in the industry, leaving less incentive for the remaining firms to compete. Not to mention national security, economy, pride, etc.

We're losing too much. There are no more American macrobrewers (except the premium market Boston Brewing Company). There are no American consumer electronics makers (except computer companies). Do we really want to lose the auto industry?
 

rhett7660

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
14,224
4,304
Sunny, Southern California
The American government should not intervene with any of this. Let the market ride itself, the so called free market should be run like everyday life: the strong and smart outlast the dumb and weak. Make companies more competitive by not intervening so big companies aren't so concerned about ignoring people's needs by making stupid business decisions because the government will just bail them out. Do this, and prices will go down from the competitiveness, people buy more due to cheaper prices, and the economy is much stronger.

I couldn't agree more. Sad to see it go, but if it is going under let it. They made the decisions, let them live with them.
 

cantthinkofone

macrumors 65816
Jul 25, 2004
1,285
0
Missouri, USA
Ford has had a stake in Mazda since 1979.

Yup. Why do you think the new mustang has such good handling.

Because people still need them. My family still has a need for a Suburban for towing and hauling 7 people and cargo.

I know. But they put all their resources in making suvs and trucks. Not many people are driving around big SUVs any more unless they need them, like your self.

Right now, and even two years ago, people were wanting fuel efficient cars.

I'm not sure when toyota started working on the prius, but it came out right on time. Seems like they were ready for the storm.
 

mikeyredk

macrumors 65816
Mar 13, 2003
1,267
1
So what happened to the talk of the iCar? The way things are going apple has the cash to buy GM
 

jbernie

macrumors 6502a
Nov 25, 2005
927
12
Denver, CO
They both make absolutely horrid vehicles that look and feel super cheap and run like **** and fall apart... I hope they close shop, it is survival of the fitest.

Maybe they should actually live in reality, scale back there damn suv and truck production because almost no one is buying, and give some cars that are innovative, say ones that actually meet higher gas mileage goals? (40 mpg).


Sounds like some people haven't stopped near a GM dealer in the last 20 years. Now, slowly open your eyes, be careful now, we don't want you getting blinded by the sunlight, but look and see over there, not too far away, it is reality, where GM provides some of the most fuel efficent vehicles available, they may not sell the MOST fuel efficent vehicle available in the US market (Prius?) but overall they do a lot more than most. Also keep in mind GM is represented by many brands not 2 or 3.

If GM stopped selling those SUVs & Trucks the people who do actually need those vehicles would just trot along to the next guy who does, strangely enough a Prius does not make a good work vehicle for a construction company. I know, it maybe a shock to some of you but the world doesn't work on small cars alone.

The American government should not intervene with any of this. Let the market ride itself, the so called free market should be run like everyday life: the strong and smart outlast the dumb and weak. Make companies more competitive by not intervening so big companies aren't so concerned about ignoring people's needs by making stupid business decisions because the government will just bail them out. Do this, and prices will go down from the competitiveness, people buy more due to cheaper prices, and the economy is much stronger.

Ahh yes, we must not help any company in need, there is no purpose in helping GM, Ford & Chrysler, they are weak companies, they got themselves into this position, they must die becauses of errors made in the past.

Knock knock, its reality speaking, remove all 3 US automakers and the potential job losses will amount to around 3 million, as the job losses will quickly spread to most other parts of the economy as you would suddenly have hundreds of thousands of people out of work and little to no money to spend.

Oooo should we mention that there is billions of income taxes and corporate taxes that would not exist either, which may just happen to knock about government spending in many areas as suddenly the money isn't there.

Now, the Federal Government could offer loans, no not Bail Outs like they give their buddies on Wall St, a loan that must be repaid, which will allow these three large employers to reorganize and continue to improve.... or you could just tell them to get lost, see them all fail and then a few months later we will wait for people like you to be complaining endlessly how things suck because the governments do not have enough money to spend on required services.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
14,670
21,048
yea, uh, maybe i should have made it clear that I was talking about Ford. Whenever i pass their dealership its a see of trucks and suvs, then a small lot for cars.

Edit: and I never said stop making them, theres a demand for them obviously, but their production in the last couple of years has FAR outpaced their sales, and if they looked anywhere into the future its obvious that people are shifting towards buying with fuel economy as a major factor.

Of course theres always gonna be families that need them, like mine

1994 GMC suburban
2003 (POS) chrysler Town & country
and my sister has a 94 volvo wagon thats being replaced with the 97 model
 

erickkoch

macrumors 6502a
Jan 13, 2003
676
0
Kalifornia
Just curious, has Japan ever had to bail out Toyota or Honda? Has Korea ever had to bail out Hyundai?

I seem to recall we bailed out Chrysler once already many years ago. I don't want the auto industry in the US to fail but there comes a time when you just have to let the dead wood burn.
 

joeshell383

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2006
792
0
Just curious, has Japan ever had to bail out Toyota or Honda? Has Korea ever had to bail out Hyundai?

I seem to recall we bailed out Chrysler once already many years ago. I don't want the auto industry in the US to fail but there comes a time when you just have to let the dead wood burn.

Japan has long had protectionist trade policies that kept foreign automakers out.
 

danny_w

macrumors 601
Mar 8, 2005
4,467
300
Cumming, GA
Just curious, has Japan ever had to bail out Toyota or Honda? Has Korea ever had to bail out Hyundai?

I seem to recall we bailed out Chrysler once already many years ago. I don't want the auto industry in the US to fail but there comes a time when you just have to let the dead wood burn.
Yes, but Chrysler completely repaid the $1.2B loan in a quick 4 years.
 

aethelbert

macrumors 601
Jun 1, 2007
4,287
0
Chicago, IL, USA
He'll do a better job than McCain, shh.
And this will be confirmed when? Oh right, never.

As for the companies going under, that's not gonna happen if the government keeps throwing money at the industry before they can even see the implementation of the previous package. I can easily see this winding up like the Italian government and Alitalia.
 

danny_w

macrumors 601
Mar 8, 2005
4,467
300
Cumming, GA
You shouldn't have anything to worry about, I think instead of Ford developing crap for Mazda, it's the other way around :p
Ford and Mazda have had a relationship at least since the early '70s. I know that Ford pickups had Mazda air conditioner compressors even way back then. Of course the Ford Ranger is just a rebadged Mazda B2xxx, the last Escort was a Mazda Protege, etc. They bought a larger percentage of Mazda in the '80s or '90s but I don't know that they ever bought them out completely.
 

n8mac

macrumors 6502
Jun 25, 2006
435
48
Ohio
You shouldn't have anything to worry about, I think instead of Ford developing crap for Mazda, it's the other way around :p

I went ahead and looked up on wiki. Here's what I found...

Ford doesn't completely own Mazda, rather they have a 33.6% stake in them currently. Mazda is called an associate of Ford.

From wiki:
"Mazda also helped Ford develop the 1991 Explorer, which Mazda sold as the 2-door only Mazda Navajo from 1991 through 1994. Ironically, Mazda's version was unsuccessful, while the Ford (available from the start as a 4-door or 2-door model) instantly became the best selling sport-utility vehicle in the United States and kept that title for over a decade. Mazda has used Ford's Ranger pickup as the basis for its North American-market B-Series trucks, starting in 1994 and continuing through to the present."

LOL

"Since 1997, Ford's deeper involvement in Mazda's operations has meant an increasing level of cooperation in engineering and marketing as well. The two firms now share engine designs from around the world (Ford uses Mazda's four-cylinder designs in large numbers, while Mazda has replaced its own V6 engine lines with designs from Ford) and have made several combined efforts in platform engineering. Their first major platform cooperation of this type began with the Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute models, which were effectively a global design that has since been sold in many parts of the world. The most recent Ford Focus also shares a platform with both the Mazda Axela and the Volvo S40."

I guess my 1996 Millenia is safe. It does make me think about future purchases.

"Amidst the world financial crisis in the fall of 2008, reports emerged that Ford was contemplating a sale of its stake in Mazda as a way of streamlining its asset base [6]. BusinessWeek explained the alliance between Ford and Mazda has been a very successful one, with Mazda saving perhaps $90 million a year in development costs and Ford "several times" that, and that a sale of its stake in Mazda would be a desperate measure."
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
14,670
21,048
Id guess that 33% is the majority shareholder, so that would make them the owners.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Id guess that 33% is the majority shareholder, so that would make them the owners.

The rules for this work slightly differently in Japan than in most other countries... the level of ownership Ford has allows them to "control" Mazda, which is somewhat more power than just being majority shareholder entails (it allows them, as I understand it, to do things like report Mazda earnings).

Anyway, though... Mazda makes great cars. I love my 6. The new 6 looks very nice, but simply too big for me (I was disappointed that they took it in this direction). The 3 looks great also. Their two new SUVs and their micro-minivan are interesting also, albeit not to my taste. They are weak in that they don't really have a hybrid electric plan. But Mazda definitely makes the most fun to drive cars coming out of Japan.
 

geese

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2003
525
0
London, UK
I'll be surprised if one of the big 3 doesn't go bust- look what happened to the British car industry. No amount of government intervention saved it.

Too many cars being made- something has got to give.
 

GSMiller

macrumors 68000
Dec 2, 2006
1,666
0
Kentucky
Yeah, the Fusion and Edge both ride on Mazda platforms.

I didn't know those two were built on a Mazda platform, I knew the Ranger was though, and I remember Mazda having an SUV called the "Navajo" back in the 90s that was identical to the Explorer, not sure which was based on which there though.

Ford and Mazda have had a relationship at least since the early '70s. I know that Ford pickups had Mazda air conditioner compressors even way back then. Of course the Ford Ranger is just a rebadged Mazda B2xxx, the last Escort was a Mazda Protege, etc. They bought a larger percentage of Mazda in the '80s or '90s but I don't know that they ever bought them out completely.

Ford owns a good amount of Mazda, but not a controlling stake. Just enough to benefit from Mazda's surge in the last few years.

I went ahead and looked up on wiki. Here's what I found...

Ford doesn't completely own Mazda, rather they have a 33.6% stake in them currently. Mazda is called an associate of Ford.

From wiki:
"Mazda also helped Ford develop the 1991 Explorer, which Mazda sold as the 2-door only Mazda Navajo from 1991 through 1994. Ironically, Mazda's version was unsuccessful, while the Ford (available from the start as a 4-door or 2-door model) instantly became the best selling sport-utility vehicle in the United States and kept that title for over a decade. Mazda has used Ford's Ranger pickup as the basis for its North American-market B-Series trucks, starting in 1994 and continuing through to the present."

LOL

"Since 1997, Ford's deeper involvement in Mazda's operations has meant an increasing level of cooperation in engineering and marketing as well. The two firms now share engine designs from around the world (Ford uses Mazda's four-cylinder designs in large numbers, while Mazda has replaced its own V6 engine lines with designs from Ford) and have made several combined efforts in platform engineering. Their first major platform cooperation of this type began with the Ford Escape and Mazda Tribute models, which were effectively a global design that has since been sold in many parts of the world. The most recent Ford Focus also shares a platform with both the Mazda Axela and the Volvo S40."

I guess my 1996 Millenia is safe. It does make me think about future purchases.

"Amidst the world financial crisis in the fall of 2008, reports emerged that Ford was contemplating a sale of its stake in Mazda as a way of streamlining its asset base [6]. BusinessWeek explained the alliance between Ford and Mazda has been a very successful one, with Mazda saving perhaps $90 million a year in development costs and Ford "several times" that, and that a sale of its stake in Mazda would be a desperate measure."

I knew the numbers would be on Wikipedia! I think it would be stupid for Ford to sell their stake in Mazda right now, as stupid as it was for GM to sale their stakes in Suzuki and Subaru (although I think GM still owns like 3% of Suzuki). The Japanese brands seem to be where its at right now. I would definitely research any Mazda before I bought it, for fear that's its just a rebadged Ford :p I was going to buy a Mazda3 when I was in the market a few years ago, but because all the Mazda dealers refused to cooperate. I wanted a specific color, they wouldn't tell me what they had in stock, so I wasn't driving 50+ miles just to come back home without a new car. They thought they'd get me on the lot and force a car upon me I didn't want, but I'm just spiteful enough to where I would have driven the 50 miles back home without a new car and them without a sale. The Chevy dealer I bought my Cobalt from on the other hand done business completely over the phone.

I'll be surprised if one of the big 3 doesn't go bust- look what happened to the British car industry. No amount of government intervention saved it.

Too many cars being made- something has got to give.

And yet it seems like the cars that people want to buy, GM can't make them fast enough :confused:
 

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 68000
Mar 10, 2005
1,554
2,882
I hope GM doesn't go under, but for personal reasons.

My father worked for GM for over 20 years as an electrician at the local assembly plant. He has since retired and lives on his retirement, which includes the check along with health benefits.

If GM declares bankruptcy, he has suddenly lost all that he ever worked for and after finally being able to retire, will be left with nothing except the position of having to become employed all over again in his 60's.
 

AmbitiousLemon

Moderator emeritus
Nov 28, 2001
3,415
3
down in Fraggle Rock
I think this chart might be useful:
thumb1280x1280_2364177540_0e30819365_o.jpg


Regarding the argument of intervention versus laissez faire. The reason we are seeing staunch fiscal conservatives (not many of them left unfortunately) joining democrats to "bail out" companies is that they have been informed by history. Leading up to the great depression it was felt that the only way to rid the system of the bad loans was to allow banks to fail. A more recent example occurred in Japan. The difference here is that the Japanese government recognized that a bail out was necessary, but felt the public would not tolerate the intervention. 20 Years later and the Japanese economy still has not regained the heights it was at prior to their crash.

The economy will "ride out" these bad times by purging the bad companies and money from the system through the process of bankruptcy, but the social implications can be dire (as seen in the great depression), and the time it takes can be very long (as in Japan).


President-elect Obama says:
The news coming out of the auto industry this week reminds us of the hardship it faces – hardship that goes far beyond individual auto companies to the countless suppliers, small businesses and communities throughout our nation who depend on a vibrant American auto industry. The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I would like to see the Administration do everything they can to accelerate the retooling assistance that Congress has already enacted. In addition, I have made it a high priority for my transition team to work on additional policy options to help the auto industry adjust, weather the financial crisis, and succeed in producing fuel-efficient cars here in the United States. I have asked my team to explore what we can do under current law and whether additional legislation will be needed for this purpose.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm gave some of the specifics, telling the world President-elect Obama hopes to approve the $25 billion in assistance for retooling in additional to other policy options to help U.S. automakers create fuel-efficient cars.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.