GM Ordered By Feds to Prepare for Bankruptcy

[Jason]

From Dailytech (http://www.dailytech.com/Report+GM+Ordered+By+Feds+to+Prepare+for+Bankruptc y/article14837.htm)

The end of the General Motors saga may be nearing. After months of bailouts and pleas for more money, the U.S. government ruled that GM's recovery plan was unacceptable. They ordered GM to reorganize, removing CEO Rick Wagoner, a veteran of 30 years at GM and 8 years as CEO, as the first step.

[Johan]

I look forward to seeing how the UAW and the Democrats spin this as the responsibility of the evil, labor-hating Republican Party. I anticipate some true lulz over that.

Also, if I lived in Michigan, I would move...two decades ago.

[Wilkz07]

cdn gov. said they'd cover warranties should something like that happen. we are looking at getting a new car soon. No.1 criteria - have the filed for bailout or bankruptcy.

looking at hyundai or nissan.

[Narradisall]

I hate to be that guy, but isn't there another thread about this somewhere?

On the topic, they will likely be broken down into smaller organisations and some removed entirely. It sucks, but thats what happens with a failed business plan and the whole 'Im too big to fail' bullshit shouldn't stick.

[opsin]

I look forward to seeing how the UAW and the Democrats spin this as the responsibility of the evil, labor-hating Republican Party. I anticipate some true lulz over that.

Also, if I lived in Michigan, I would move...two decades ago.

I'll give the second part, for sure!
But, you don't think the fact they came out of 8 years of little economic oversight from the government in the shape they did says something?

I think so far the democrats are making a farce of things, and Clinton's government was already starting the removal of all economic oversight that caused the problems, but the attitude of complete greed from the republicans in these last years - be it in Haliburton making money from the war or PFI's making money off of Katrina or whatever else - leaves noone in politics in the states looking even remotely clean. But republicans keep claiming the democrats are all at fault and the dems keep saying the republicans are dirty. It's ludicrous.

I thought it interesting, on Newswipe the other night, Peter Oborne, talking about his new book, basically covering the fact that most politicians nowadays go straight into politics, and thus the amount of dealings keying them up for huge incomes has risen. All the ties with major companies, like Tony Blair now being an advisor to some huge conglomerate, or John Major moving to the company with ties to Haliburton.

Back in the old days, politicians had already basically made their life's wages before getting into the public service game.

But anyway, I just find the leaping to saying 'Oh, the democrats are going to blame republicans' comment, as if Bush's administration didn't do more than it's fair share to bork the economy, is... just bizarre. And don't attack me for being a democrat, 'cause I'm really not (I'm a lilly livered socialist Brit, only more sick of the fuckers over here than there!). I'm sick of modern politics and the corporate ties more than anything. Free market might even work (though I doubt it) if politicians weren't making millions off it for them and their friends.

[CES]

With any luck they'll split off Opel/Vauxhall and sell them to a company that can finance them. Vauxhall as of late have been doing really well in the UK.

[Johan]

I just find the leaping to saying 'Oh, the democrats are going to blame republicans' comment, as if Bush's administration didn't do more than it's fair share to bork the economy, is... just bizarre.

Yes, because political parties blaming one another is...so bizarre! :D

GM is Obama's baby. He took it under his wing, put new leadership in place, and decided to meddle. It's HIS responsibility how that shakes out for the UAW, not Bush's.

Spin away. :rolling eyes: I won't attack you for being a Democrat, but for being wrong, okay! :)

[opsin]

GM is Obama's baby. He took it under his wing, put new leadership in place, and decided to meddle. It's HIS responsibility how that shakes out for the UAW, not Bush's.

Spin away. :rolling eyes: I won't attack you for being a Democrat, but for being wrong, okay! :)


Sigh.

Twice if it makes the minimum post length.

(I forgot just how militant you are...)

I'll just add that, as I pointed out, I wasn't taking blame away from Obama. I said, the dems are fucking up the economic rebuild, but tha economy is in the state it is after about 10 years of deregulation from both dems and moreover the last 8 years of Bush and Cheney. So how they're suddenly not to blame is beyond me.

[Johan]

So how they're suddenly not to blame is beyond me.

They're not suddenly to blame for the economy, and I never said that. However, Obama has chosen to intervene in GM, and any subsequent actions will be his responsibility, because HE is guiding GM to bankruptcy; HIS administration is making that decision. GM wants to reorganize outside of the bankruptcy courts. If they go through bankruptcy, it's Obama's administration's choice, and it will surely break the UAW, which would be incredibly ironic, wouldn't it?!!? Yes, it would.

It's so simple, yet so hard to accept responsibility, isn't it?

[opsin]

It's so simple, yet so hard to accept responsibility, isn't it?

Well, you're having a different conversation to the one I started so... If you say so.

[Sl1pstream]

I look forward to seeing how the UAW and the Democrats spin this as the responsibility of the evil, labor-hating Republican Party. I anticipate some true lulz over that.

Because it's their fault?

I mean, pumping money into GM was a bad idea but GM went to shit because of their own fault. I really don't see how this is the fault of either political party.

I like how you're trying to spin this one though, as if GM suddenly started having problems from the moment the government took over.

[Johan]

I really don't see how this is the fault of any political party.

It wouldn't have been, if it had remained a purely privatized problem. When Obama decided to pump taxpayer money into GM, and then to force out the CEO and install his own handpicked successor, and then hold right of rejection/acceptance of any reorganization plan, pushing for bankruptcy when the company wants to reorganize without court intervention...

who is responsible then?

This is not a difficult question. Really.

I like how you're trying to spin this one though.

The fact that you see this as "spin" is unbelievably mind-boggling and amusing to me. :D

[AgtFox]

It wouldn't have been, if it had remained a purely privatized problem. When Obama decided to pump taxpayer money into GM
Don't really get into political arguments, but who was the one that gave GM taxpayer money in the first place?

[Johan]

Don't really get into political arguments, but who was the one that gave GM taxpayer money in the first place?

Yes, the "who opened the can" argument. I'm familiar with that herring, as a Swede who enjoys my fish. I'd say you'd have to go back to the founding of the company, and governmental intervention throughout its history, for the answer to your question of who gave GM taxpayer money in the first place!

Now, who gave them money in the second place? Who forced out their CEO and chose a successor? Who is holding right of refusal to their reorganization plan? Who has the power to force them, against their management team's will, into bankruptcy? Who is refusing to give them more money, when AIG has been given $180+ billion? Who is currently president?

Same answer for all of them.

[Kelegacy]

Let them tank. At this point, there is nothing else we can do. We gave them a fair chance. We gave them tons of money. They are too big. Bankruptcy will have negative repercussions, but there is nothing else we can do at this point. They have been on life support for too long.

I'd rather buy a Toyota than any GM product anyway. GM has gobbled up too many companies for its own good, now it's going to choke.

As for the political arguments, c'mon. Our current president is probably going to go down as one of the biggest janitors in history, cleaning up the overflown toilets of the past administration. He's trying his damnedest. But some problems don't have an easy remedy. It's more humane to put the old, sick dog down instead of keeping him alive and suffering. And it's far cheaper, too.

[Sl1pstream]

Who is holding right of refusal to their reorganization plan?
What if their reorganization plan is shit? Should they just be given the okay even when it's shit and isn't going to work?
Who has the power to force them, against their management team's will, into bankruptcy?
Their previous management team was crap, maybe this one doesn't know what's good for the company either.
Who is refusing to give them more money, when AIG has been given $180+ billion?
Are you saying that the only solution to this problem is to keep pouring money into GM, even when they're never going to be able to solve their problems? Really?
Who is currently president?
Same answer for all of them.
Whatever, dude, whatever.

Besides, bankruptcy could be a good thing.

[Johan]

Bankruptcy will have negative repercussions, but there is nothing else we can do at this point.

I've heard there's another solution making the rounds in Washington, called "endless rivers of money to the tune of 180+ billion or more for AIG alone." Why not help out your union buddies if you're a Democratic politician who has been supported by them repeatedly over years and years?

Their previous management team was crap, maybe this one doesn't know what's good for the company either.

The present management team was selected with/by Obama's administration, and works under threat of firing at Obama's discretion. So, are you saying that Obama doesn't know what he's doing? It's quite clear who is in charge; Obama! He is the present 'management team' for GM. :confused:

Are you saying that the only solution to this problem is to keep pouring money into GM, even when they're never going to be able to solve their problems? Really?

Nope. I'm clearly saying that Obama should not have enmeshed himself in GM, but if he is going to, it's quite disingenuous for you, or others, to try to separate him from any responsibility for what results from his intervention.

Besides, bankruptcy could be a good thing.

I'd like to hear that argument, with a UAW representative in the room/thread at the time, as well.

Whatever, dude, whatever.

This is an excellent beginning to a rhetorical position.

[Ox]

I'd like to hear that argument, with a UAW representative in the room/thread at the time, as well.
I can't get a UAW representative in here, although I did lecture a retired UAW rep over Christmas dinner (which does not speak well of my graciousness, but whatever). Chapter 11 bankruptcy is specifically designed to prevent a business from shutting its doors: it has the power to dissolve debts, impose new union contracts, reorganize operations, and virtually anything else necessary to allow the business to regain profitability. Much as I dislike the Muscovite imperialist fetishism implied by the term, a bankruptcy judge would be like an "auto czar" with actual powers. Plus, the taxpayer expenditure would be a miniscule fraction of what we're currently paying: perhaps a million dollars or so for the judge, staff, and attendant costs, tops.

GM still has a lot of valuable parts: brand recognition, a pool of semi-skilled labor, industrial equipment, and intellectual property. These valuable parts can be the core of a new, successful business.

[Stmfuller]

I look forward to seeing how the UAW and the Democrats spin this as the responsibility of the evil, labor-hating Republican Party. I anticipate some true lulz over that.

Also, if I lived in Michigan, I would move...two decades ago.
we did. I miss the place horribly. But there aren't no jobs there..........

what I heard is that there will be a good gm and bad gm. good gm takes the cars and stuff.
bad gm takes the debt and sorts it out.
from there bad gm takes chapter 7 and calls it good.

[DeathtollWRX]

Let me get this right, so all the money we already dumped in there was in vain anyways? Please let them burn. I don't buy their products and most people I know don't either.

No matter how much money they try to save it won't matter. We as Americans are not buying their garbage!

[Xerxes]

Hell, i was looking into getting a Equinox or a Traverse.

[Johan]

I can't get a UAW representative in here, although I did lecture a retired UAW rep over Christmas dinner (which does not speak well of my graciousness, but whatever). Chapter 11 bankruptcy is specifically designed to prevent a business from shutting its doors: it has the power to dissolve debts, impose new union contracts, reorganize operations, and virtually anything else necessary to allow the business to regain profitability. Much as I dislike the Muscovite imperialist fetishism implied by the term, a bankruptcy judge would be like an "auto czar" with actual powers. Plus, the taxpayer expenditure would be a miniscule fraction of what we're currently paying: perhaps a million dollars or so for the judge, staff, and attendant costs, tops.

GM still has a lot of valuable parts: brand recognition, a pool of semi-skilled labor, industrial equipment, and intellectual property. These valuable parts can be the core of a new, successful business.

YES. Someone gets it! I'm sure the UAW is all over the prospect of bankruptcy, and happy to see Obama pursue it! :D

The rest of your post doesn't disagree with anything I've stated, and I would echo it. Bankruptcy can help GM survive, but it didn't need to be OBAMA that pushed them there. He's a bright politician, but a fool for having chosen to get enmeshed in managing GM, which is exactly what he is doing...managing a company. If they go into bankruptcy, he pushed them there, whether he wants to accept that or not, and he didn't need to be the one to do that. That's a foolish political miscalculation, in my book, but the UAW and/or Dems will spin it away, as some have tried to in this thread.

[Disgustipated]

Hell, i was looking into getting a Equinox or a Traverse.

Buy a real auto, would you? You're part of the problem. :p

[Xerxes]

Buy a real auto, would you? You're part of the problem. :p

My first choice was another Avalon, then comes a Maxima.

[Johan]

My first choice was another Avalon, then comes a Maxima.

I'd like another Avalon myself. Great album. (http://www.google.com/musicl?lid=p-afWST4ouJ&aid=fDbPlFROTQG)

[Ox]

YES. Someone gets it! I'm sure the UAW is all over the prospect of bankruptcy, and happy to see Obama pursue it! :D

The rest of your post doesn't disagree with anything I've stated, and I would echo it. Bankruptcy can help GM survive, but it didn't need to be OBAMA that pushed them there.
No, no, no. Obama is trying to keep GM out of the lifesaving embrace of Chapter 11. He's doing it in large part because the UAW is afraid of Chapter 11, and for good reason. He's also doing it because he thinks people are stupid and don't understand that "Chapter 11" is not the same as "ceasing to exist."

Right now, Obama is trying to do a Chapter-11-style restructuring without actually using Chapter 11. This is why he's pushing the management to come up with a reorganization plan and asking the creditors to take haircuts. The problem with trying to do a bankruptcy without using bankruptcy laws is simple: you don't have any power. Obama can't actually compel the UAW to accept different terms, or the bondholders to take haircuts, or even impose a reorganization plan. He's trying to use charisma and persuasion to replace the power of the law. He's a charming guy, but as the intransigent bondholders are demonstrating, you can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.

[Johan]

No, no, no. Obama is trying to keep GM out of the lifesaving embrace of Chapter 11.

That's interesting. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/business/13gm.html?hp)

The Treasury Department is directing General Motors to lay the groundwork for a bankruptcy filing by a June 1 deadline, despite G.M.’s public contention that it could still reorganize outside court, people with knowledge of the plans said during the weekend.

The goal is to prepare for a fast “surgical” bankruptcy, the people who had been briefed on the plans said. G.M., which has been granted $13.4 billion in federal aid, insists that a quick restructuring is necessary so its image and sales are not damaged permanently.

So, who is pushing them towards bankruptcy? GM management has resisted it. Treasury and the feds are pushing it. GM wants it? :confused: I get it! It's opposite world!

[Generation ABXY]

I get it! It's opposite world!

Blame LHC. I do, and it explains so much of what has happened in the past year. :p

[Johan]

Blame LHC. I do, and it explains so much of what has happened in the past year. :p

Didn't they shut that down? Besides, I'm partial to THC myself. :D

Actually, I'm not. Really.

:smoke rings:

[Generation ABXY]

Didn't they shut that down?

That's what I'd say, too, after realizing it's chucked us into another dimension.

[Ox]

So, who is pushing them towards bankruptcy? GM management has resisted it. Treasury and the feds are pushing it. GM wants it? :confused: I get it! It's opposite world!
No. Ever issued a threat you didn't want to go through with? That's what Obama is doing right now. None of the players want bankruptcy, because they'll all lose: creditors will get nailed, the UAW will lose its contract, management will be castrated if not expelled, and Obama looks like he's a failure or fiddling while Rome burns. Everyone is agreeing to participate in Obama's charade because they all privately think they can game the system with him better than they can with the court. Obviously, they can't all be right. But they're all resisting him, and the only way he can get compliance (since he has no coercive power) is to say, "Do what I say or I'll throw you to the Big Bad Judge."

If Obama wanted GM to go bankrupt, he wouldn't say, "Prepare for bankruptcy." He'd just stop taking their calls. Obama does not have to personally involve himself in the bankruptcy of any company, and if he simply stops writing checks, GM will slip into bankruptcy quite quickly. He's saying "Prepare for bankruptcy" to intimidate them. The very last thing he wants is for them to call his bluff. (This isn't to say that Obama wouldn't permit bankruptcy under the right circumstances; but he really doesn't want to).

[Johan]

No. Ever issued a threat you didn't want to go through with? That's what Obama is doing right now.

Of course, but he is still doing it. Him. If the unions don't blink, and I don't believe they will to the tune of concessions that would be required to make GM work, then bankruptcy it will be.

If they do enter bankruptcy, he pushed them there. He should have stayed out of it, and left the political fallout for the nebulous "tough economy" and "the last administration's legacy." Instead, he has embraced it.

Foolish.

[Ox]

I'll agree it will be politically foolish. I just disagree that intervening and failing to prevent bankruptcy counts as "pushing." If you're about to step off a cliff, I might run up and tell you it's a bad idea. If you tell me to fuck off, I'll step back and watch you plunge. But I didn't push you.

[Johan]

I just disagree that intervening and failing to prevent bankruptcy counts as "pushing."

I disagree that telling GM to prepare for bankruptcy is preventing it. If Obama truly wanted to prevent it, he'd do what he's done for AIG...run the presses, print some money, pour it in, and watch the unions cheer.

[BlackPete]

Excuse me, but is this going to be one of those threads where everything's the Democrats fault, and everything suddenly went rosy when Bush got elected and tanked after he left office?

Just checking.

[Ox]

Okay, let's say that Obama would like to prevent bankruptcy, but not at any cost. There are some things he's willing to do (like try to negotiate a settlement), and some things he's not willing to do (like run the presses).

Although it's worth noting that Obama doesn't actually have control over the presses. He needs Congressional authorization for giving money to GM. And presumably even the Congressional Democrats will get tired of that eventually.

Ultimately, Obama does not give a shit about the UAW or GM. The only thing he really cares about is his reelection chances in 2012, same as every past and future occupant of the White House. He's calculating that avoiding GM bankruptcy and restoring it to solvency would help that goal. Just handing money to GM forever probably wouldn't. I'm presuming he's smart enough to realize when to cut his losses, but then stepping in in the first place was a dumb move, so maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

[Banacek]

Excuse me, but is this going to be one of those threads where everything's the Democrats fault, and everything suddenly went rosy when Bush got elected and tanked after he left office?

Just checking.

Please, I doubt Johan even believes that. He's just trolling to get his rocks off. Anyone who argues with him is a fool.

[LordDon]

Do any politicians ever get into the biz to, you know, serve the public?

[Johan]

He needs Congressional authorization for giving money to GM.

TARP money, of which GM is a recipient, has no such restrictions attached to it, and never did. You are fundamentally wrong on that point.

Ultimately, Obama does not give a shit about the UAW or GM. The only thing he really cares about is his reelection chances in 2012

I agree he doesn't give a rip about GM or the UAW, but I do think he has a three-fold plan for reinventing America that goes beyond his own reelection, fundamentally changing America's health care, education, and energy paradigms. Those are his real concerns, not the UAW or GM.

If they go bankrupt, however, I'll enjoy the spinning of the destruction of the UAW away from the Democrats. That'll be a hoot. :D

[Cpl_Punnishment]

i'm too closely tied to this subject to speak on it without some degree of emotion taking over.

I see some of you understand the repercussions while others do not.

***Edited my wall of text that will serve no purpose. nevermind.

[Ox]

Please, I doubt Johan even believes that. He's just trolling to get his rocks off. Anyone who argues with him is a fool.
Funny, because that's not what he's arguing at all. I think he's wrong, but he's made several substantive posts making his point. If there's trolling afoot here right now, Johan's not the culprit.

Do any politicians ever get into the biz to, you know, serve the public?
I'm sure lots of them do. Heck, I'll be Obama still tries to serve the public. Just like I try to tip the bartender when I'm focused on picking up a hot girl. But for both of us, it's a side matter beside our major focus.

TARP money, of which GM is a recipient, has no such restrictions attached to it, and never did.
You misunderstand (which is entirely my fault, since I was unclear). TARP money is not infinite. Congress authorized a certain quantity of money and permitted Obama to spend it as he saw fit. When that money runs out (which it will), he'll have to go back and ask for more.

[cp#]

I can't wait, personally.

[TheKeck]

Do any politicians ever get into the biz to, you know, serve the public?
This is a common rant of a buddy of mine at work. More specifically, people who would actually try to serve the public aren't crazy enough to want to deal with politics. Conversely, politics attracts people who are either nutso, or power hungry, or both. :p

[Banacek]

Funny, because that's not what he's arguing at all. I think he's wrong, but he's made several substantive posts making his point. If there's trolling afoot here right now, Johan's not the culprit.

Hey, you two entertain yourselves however you want. Here's hoping you finally win one.

[Narradisall]

GM owns some good brands etc and since its Chapter 11 you'll likely see those continue on. They'll only lose the parts of the business that the others have been holding up recently (if it happens at all).

Yea, it sucks for those people working in those bits that will lose their jobs, and its not even their fault. I'm sure most of them did the job well for years, bad things happen to people though.

[Narradisall]

Hey, you two entertain yourselves however you want. Here's hoping you finally win one.

Maybe they will become so involved in the debate that they will be stuck here forever. Kind of universally cancelling each other out.

[Johan]

Maybe they will become so involved in the debate that they will be stuck here forever. Kind of universally cancelling each other out.

I don't have enough rhetorical skill to cancel out a day's worth of Ox's posts, so forever will be over pretty quickly. :D

[Wraith]

I hope GM survives long enough for some of their new models to get a chance in the market.

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/firstdrive/2010/chevrolet.cruze/2010.cruze.actprf.chevrolet.fd.500.1.jpg

Chevy Cruze (http://www.chevrolet.com/2011cruze/) - Compact that's replacing the Cobalt. 1.8L 4-cylinder @140hp, or turbo 1.4L with a bit more torque. Supposedly gets ~45MPG hwy. Edmunds liked it on their test drive (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=145366). I know enthusiasts despise automatics (there's still a 5-speed manual), but you can get it with a 6-speed auto. Should be much better competition for the Focus and Civic than the Cobalt.
Chevy Spark (http://www.chevrolet.com/spark/) - A new little FIT/Yaris-fighter. Supposed to get 40mpg. Coming to the U.S. in 2011.
Chevy Equinox (http://www.chevrolet.com/allnewequinox/) - Totally redone smallish-midsize SUV/crossover/tall wagon, can now be had with a 4-cylinder engine for better fuel economy.
Chevy Orlando (http://www.chevrolet.com/orlando/) - MPV that seats 7, with better fuel economy than a large SUV.
Chevy Volt (http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/) - GM's range-extended electric vehicle. Runs about 40 miles on electricity alone, then a small gas engine kicks on to feed power to the battery, for longer range. Still gets ~50mpg when charging from the gas engine. Will be expensive at first, but likely serves as the starting point for future green vehicle endeavors.


And no, I'm not just advertising for GM. Just trying to show that they are developing new, more fuel efficient vehicles that should help them compete better in a number of market segments. And even the new Camaro (http://www.chevrolet.com/allnewcamaro/) is rated up to 29mpg on the highway (304hp V6).

[CES]

I hope GM survives long enough for some of their new models to get a chance in the market.

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/firstdrive/2010/chevrolet.cruze/2010.cruze.actprf.chevrolet.fd.500.1.jpg

Chevy Cruze (http://www.chevrolet.com/2011cruze/) - Compact that's replacing the Cobalt. 1.8L 4-cylinder @140hp, or turbo 1.4L with a bit more torque. Supposedly gets ~45MPG hwy. Edmunds liked it on their test drive (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=145366). I know enthusiasts despise automatics (there's still a 5-speed manual), but you can get it with a 6-speed auto. Should be much better competition for the Focus and Civic than the Cobalt.
Chevy Spark (http://www.chevrolet.com/spark/) - A new little FIT/Yaris-fighter. Supposed to get 40mpg. Coming to the U.S. in 2011.
Chevy Equinox (http://www.chevrolet.com/allnewequinox/) - Totally redone smallish-midsize SUV/crossover/tall wagon, can now be had with a 4-cylinder engine for better fuel economy.
Chevy Orlando (http://www.chevrolet.com/orlando/) - MPV that seats 7, with better fuel economy than a large SUV.
Chevy Volt (http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/) - GM's range-extended electric vehicle. Runs about 40 miles on electricity alone, then a small gas engine kicks on to feed power to the battery, for longer range. Still gets ~50mpg when charging from the gas engine. Will be expensive at first, but likely serves as the starting point for future green vehicle endeavors.


And no, I'm not just advertising for GM. Just trying to show that they are developing new, more fuel efficient vehicles that should help them compete better in a number of market segments.

Not bad, except for the fact I can almost guarentee none of those models will see European release, even as a rebadge. Looking at the Spark, I'd be glad to never see it hit the Euro market. The Aygo/107 already fills the demographic of "hideously ugly small eco-car"

[BlackPete]

The Equinox made me do a facepalm. Yet another crossover?

[Banacek]

The Equinox made me do a facepalm. Yet another crossover?

The stupid thing about it is that the Equinox starts at $23k. The Honda CR-V starts at $21k and the Dodge Journey starts at $18k. No way the Equinox is worth that.

[Wraith]

Not bad, except for the fact I can almost guarentee none of those models will see European release, even as a rebadge. Looking at the Spark, I'd be glad to never see it hit the Euro market. The Aygo/107 already fills the demographic of "hideously ugly small eco-car"The Cruze and Spark have been announced for Europe, the Cruze for this year and Spark the next. The Volt is coming as an Opel, I think for 2011 or 2012. With a bit of searching, it looks like the Orlando is being made in Europe and will definitely be sold there. (May also see U.S. production.) Haven't found anything about the new Equinox in Europe.

[Wraith]

The stupid thing about it is that the Equinox starts at $23k. The Honda CR-V starts at $21k and the Dodge Journey starts at $18k. No way the Equinox is worth that.That $18k is the current price with discounts/rebates. Full MSRP looks to start at $21.6 for the Journey. The AWD 4-cyl Equinox gets better MPG than the FWD 4-cyl Journey, if the estimates (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/21/2010-chevrolet-equinox-direct-injected-with-30-mpg/) are accurate. The V6 is also a bit higher MPG. The CR-V is probably a better comparison, but I think the Equinox is also a bit larger.

Oh, and that base MSRP of $23,185 for the Equinox includes the destination charge of $745. Without that, the base MSRP is $22,440, compared to the CR-V's $21,245.

[Banacek]

That $18k is the current price with discounts/rebates. Full MSRP looks to start at $21.6 for the Journey. The AWD 4-cyl Equinox gets better MPG than the FWD 4-cyl Journey, if the estimates (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/21/2010-chevrolet-equinox-direct-injected-with-30-mpg/) are accurate. The V6 is also a bit higher MPG. The CRV is probably a better comparison, but I think the Equinox is also a bit larger.

You need the V6 for any of those cars, I would think. At least if you live somewhere around hills and mountains. I tend to favor the CR-V, just because I've had so much luck with Hondas in the past.

[Wraith]

You need the V6 for any of those cars, I would think. At least if you live somewhere around hills and mountains. I tend to favor the CR-V, just because I've had so much luck with Hondas in the past.Maybe at higher elevations & steeper grades, that extra V6 oomph helps. Or if you do much towing. CR-V doesn't offer a V6 at all. Rav-4's probably a good comparison for the V6 Equinox. But V6 probably isn't a necessity for most people.

And I'm not really down on the CR-V, I'm sure it's a nice, reliable compact SUV. I just don't think the Equinox can be discounted simply because it's ~$1300 more than the base CR-V. I haven't done a spec-for-spec comparison of the two, but the Equinox is a little bigger, and produces a few more hp/torque. 6-speed auto vs. the CR-V's 5 auto. There may be other features that drive the price up a little, too.

[Banacek]

Maybe at higher elevations & steeper grades, that extra V6 oomph helps. Or if you do much towing. CR-V doesn't offer a V6 at all. Rav-4's probably a good comparison for the V6 Equinox. But V6 probably isn't a necessity for most people.

And I'm not really down on the CR-V, I'm sure it's a nice, reliable compact SUV. I just don't think the Equinox can be discounted simply because it's ~$1300 more than the base CR-V. I haven't done a spec-for-spec comparison of the two, but the Equinox is a little bigger, and produces a few more hp/torque. 6-speed auto vs. the CR-V's 5 auto. There may be other features that drive the price up a little, too.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I would lean towards the Equinox over the CR-V (my V4 Element can barely make it up a hill), I just think that they should hit the ground running and be cheaper then the rest. Like Dodge is doing with the discounts/rebates and all that. Let me buy it for $18k :)

[BlackPete]

A SUV without any oomph to it kinda defeats the "s" and "u" in SUV, don't you think?

If you're considering a 4-cyl SUV, then just get a wagon for crying out loud.

[CES]

The Cruze and Spark have been announced for Europe, the Cruze for this year and Spark the next. The Volt is coming as an Opel, I think for 2011 or 2012. With a bit of searching, it looks like the Orlando is being made in Europe and will definitely be sold there. (May also see U.S. production.) Haven't found anything about the new Equinox in Europe.

Thing is, The Cruze just isn't needed in the European market. GM already have an excellent 4-door roomy family car in the form of the Insignia (which has actually won some awards) The Spark is the ugly brother to the Aguila (also GM made)

This idea of bringing out new models when there's absolutely nothing wrong with the current ones really isn't funny. How about GM USA just sell the damn Opel cars in the USA and save some of that cash they so badly desire? Know why the UK loves Ford? Because they don't discontinue models after a few years. The Fiesta has been around for 30 years, the Ka for a decade and the beloved Mondeo (which is widely considered one of the best cars in the market) for the last 15 years. Guess which one of the "Big 3" is doing best?

[Banacek]

A SUV without any oomph to it kinda defeats the "s" and "u" in SUV, don't you think?

If you're considering a 4-cyl SUV, then just get a wagon for crying out loud.

It does. But, if you live in a flat area with good weather you don't really need the extra juice. Then again, if you live there why buy the SUV? :)

[digitalErich]

I was recently in the market for a new car (got a VW GTI) but I would have bought American if the Mondeo was available here.

Ford's best car and they don't sell it in the US...I've never been able to figure that one out. Is Ford US really that incompetent that they couldn't sell one of the best cars on the market?

[CES]

I was recently in the market for a new car (got a VW GTI) but I would have bought American if the Mondeo was available here.

Ford's best car and they don't sell it in the US...I've never been able to figure that one out. Is Ford US really that incompetent that they couldn't sell one of the best cars on the market?

Pretty sure the Mondeo is sold in the US under a different name.

Edit: Perhaps not. Seems like it used to be though.

[Wraith]

A SUV without any oomph to it kinda defeats the "s" and "u" in SUV, don't you think?

If you're considering a 4-cyl SUV, then just get a wagon for crying out loud.Well, that's basically what some are calling it, a tall wagon (http://jalopnik.com/5128621/2010-chevy-equinox-the-tall-malibu-wagon-debuts).

And yeah, a lot of drivers aren't buying a crossover/compact SUV for "Sport," and would be willing to trade V6 power for 4-cyl fuel economy. Cargo capacity and available AWD contribute to the "Utility" factor, for those who are looking for those features.

There just aren't a lot of full fledged wagons in the U.S. market. There's the Vibe/Matrix (compact), Outback (crossover wagon), Impreza (more of a hatch than wagon), Jetta/Passat wagons, Mazda 3 5-dr (compact), Mazda 5, and a few options from more expensive makes (Audi, Saab). There's a Hyundai Elantra wagon coming at some point. Of these, the Outback is probably the closest to what the Equinox offers in terms of utility.

[digitalErich]

Pretty sure the Mondeo is sold in the US under a different name.

Edit: Perhaps not. Seems like it used to be though.
It's not currently and I'm pretty sure it never was.

[Wraith]

Thing is, The Cruze just isn't needed in the European market. GM already have an excellent 4-door roomy family car in the form of the Insignia (which has actually won some awards) The Spark is the ugly brother to the Aguila (also GM made)I'm not familiar with the Insignia, but Wikipedia lists it as a large family car. The Cruze is on the large end of compact (not quite a midsize), and replaces the Lacetti. Two different classes of car. In the U.S., Chevy's large car is the Impala (outside of Buick/Cadillac). I read somewhere that in coming years, they'll have one global large car for the Insignia/Impala. I suppose either the Insignia will be brought to the U.S. and Impala phased out, or a new car altogether.It does. But, if you live in a flat area with good weather you don't really need the extra juice. Then again, if you live there why buy the SUV? :)I'm in a flat area with lousy weather (and gravel roads). I don't necessarily need lots of power, but things like AWD and ground clearance are helpful.Pretty sure the Mondeo is sold in the US under a different name.

Edit: Perhaps not. Seems like it used to be though.Here in the States, Ford has Taurus for large car, and Fusion for midsize. And I think the Taurus is getting another redesign for MY2010. Not exactly based on the Mondeo, but closer.

[CES]

It's not currently and I'm pretty sure it never was.

From what little I can glean from the internet, the Contour was almost identical to the European Mondeo.

I'm not familiar with the Insignia, but Wikipedia lists it as a large family car. The Cruze is on the large end of compact (not quite a midsize). Two different classes of car. In the U.S., Chevy's large car is the Impala (outside of Buick/Cadillac). I read somewhere that in coming years, that they'll have one global large car for the Insignia/Impala. I suppose either the Insignia will be brought to the U.S. and Impala phased out, or a new car altogether.I'm in a flat area with lousy weather (and gravel roads). I don't necessarily need lots of power, but things like AWD and ground clearance are helpful.Here in the States, Ford has Taurus for large car, and Fusion for midsize. And I think the Taurus is getting another redesign for MY2010. Not exactly based on the Mondeo, but closer.

The Insignia has only been out a few months. To be honest, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a big Compact and a Family car (see: Ford Focus, a "Family car" that's classed as a Compact)

The Fusion and Taurus seem to be the main reasons why the Mondeo won't see a US release. It does back up my point about redundant car models though.

[Wraith]

I think that "large family car" definition is different in Europe. It looks like the Insignia is closer to the current Chevy Malibu/Saturn Aura, which in the U.S. is considered a larger Midsize sedan. They're both built on the same platform (GM Epsilon II). The Impala is offered with a V6 or V8.

I think the Cruze is still significantly smaller than the Malibu/Aura, though it's not out yet, so I haven't gotten to see one in person yet.

[CES]

The Large Family Car class seems to match up with the US "Mid-size" class. I generally see them as affordable, 5 door that has a big boot (or trunk for you american types) and plenty of room inside for a family of 4. There's a lot of leeway in that though but it's a very muddy classification anyway.

On the subject of engines: Do you have any idea how rare a V8 is in the UK market? Seriously, if you want one you really have to go hunting and usually pay a lot of cash.

[Xerxes]

They can't catch a break...
GM recalls nearly 1.5 million vehicles (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/autos/gm_recall/?postversion=2009041405)

The possibility of engine fires has prompted General Motors to recall nearly 1.5 million passenger sedans manufactured between 1997 and 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced Monday.

The recall covers certain mid- and full-size passenger sedans under GM's (GM, Fortune 500) Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac brands.

The recalled vehicles all have naturally aspirated 3.8 liter V6 engines -- that is, engines that uses atmospheric pressure to bring in air for combustion rather than a mechanical blower -- according to documents filed with federal regulators by GM last week.

On Friday, the federal government acknowledged the filing and agreed to the plan.

[CES]

Wonder if they'd be willing to add to the recall by saying "If you let us recall it and scrap it, we'll part-exchange it for a new model" A variant of that idea is already doing well for Germany.

[Wraith]

There is some legislation proposed for an old vehicle trade-in credit, for promoting more fuel-efficient vehicles, getting older, more-polluting vehicles off the road, and boosting new auto sales. NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/business/31clunkers.html):Ms. Sutton’s measure would give those trading in an old car a $4,000 voucher that could be used to buy a new car that was assembled in the United States and has a fuel efficiency rating of 27 miles per gallon. A car assembled elsewhere in North America would have to get 30 miles per gallon to qualify for the $4,000. And cars that are both assembled in the United States and rated at 30 miles per gallon would fetch a $5,000 voucher.

Officials said the program could cost $2 billion or more depending on how long it operated. Ms. Sutton said the most important thing was to get the program started quickly. “The urgency for its initiation is extraordinary,” she said.

A similar bill in the Senate would provide slightly less generous subsidies, and is aimed more at protecting the environment than spurring car sales.

The Senate measure would offer up to $4,500 for the trade-in of gas guzzlers up to seven years old, $3,000 for cars that are eight to 10 years old and $2,500 for cars older than that. The Senate bill is not limited to cars assembled in North America.I'm not sure whether those mpg requirements are highway or city/hwy combined ratings. Or whether the old car you're trading in would have to be less efficient than the new car to qualify (which I suppose would punish those driving fuel-efficient older cars).

[Narradisall]

There is some legislation proposed for an old vehicle trade-in credit, for promoting more fuel-efficient vehicles, getting older, more-polluting vehicles off the road, and boosting new auto sales. NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/business/31clunkers.html):I'm not sure whether those mpg requirements are highway or city/hwy combined ratings. Or whether the old car you're trading in would have to be less efficient than the new car to qualify (which I suppose would punish those driving fuel-efficient older cars).

The UK is looking to rip-off that idea from Germany too.

Though how we implement schemes is by rushing it through, so they are just basing it on the car being "old" and not including any bonuses/reductions based on how fuel efficient it is etc.

[CES]

The UK is looking to rip-off that idea from Germany too.

Though how we implement schemes is by rushing it through, so they are just basing it on the car being "old" and not including any bonuses/reductions based on how fuel efficient it is etc.

As far as ideas go, it's a fairly decent one to rip off. This does leave the question of why our government is even considering it.

[Narradisall]

As far as ideas go, it's a fairly decent one to rip off. This does leave the question of why our government is even considering it.

Either they'll add bits to it which will complete cock it up from its original intended use (from what I've heard of the scheme this is highly likely), or it'll only be avaliable in Wales.

[CES]

Don't forget those of us in Scotland, the other UK policy testbed.

Also, since I mentioned the Insignia earlier, I present for consideration, the Insignia VXR (http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/insignia-vxr-2009-04-15).