Toyspeed.org.nz Message Board

by **barryogen** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:00 am

http://news.google.co.nz/news?ned=nz&hl=en&q=auditor+general+motors

It seems that their own auditor has announced that it is unlikely, even with govt assistance, that they have a viable business, or the ability to pull through their current position.

I'm not a fan of pretty much any of GM's stuff, but thats a big blow for the car industry.

by **AE86less** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:29 am

Anyone know what other name plates they own?

There's not alot the US could do short of growing the company's debt or taking it over. Neither of which they want to do.

by **wishihadaTE27** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:33 am

They own:
buick
GMC
Chevy
Pontiac
Saturn
Cadillac
Opel
hummer
Holden
Saab
Vauxhall

they are shareholders in:
Daewoo
suzuki
Isuzu

They are in Joint ventures with:
Autovaz (lada)
SAIC

they are in Hybrid partnerships with:
Toyota
Daimler Chrysler

They Do engines for:
Fiat
Honda

They do manufacturing for:
Renault

by **barryogen** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:36 am

Saab, although I believe that their govt is going to shell out to buy them going by an email I got from Saabcentral the other day.

I also read the other day that they were lokking at splitting Holden off as it's own entity... and Ford splitting off Ford Australia too.

For some reason I doubt they're big enough to survive by them selves though.

by **AE86less** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:44 am

You don't think Holden will survive?

They should last quite a while. At least until they go all out to develop a new chassis design again

by **barryogen** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:46 am

AE86less wrote:They should last quite a while. At least until they go all out to develop a new chassis design again

ahh, yeah, thats actually exactly what I meant. about $1 billion for the last one wasn't it?

Taking the piss is a bit mean at this point...

but the wikipedia article on GM, under "Further Reading", has this.

Barabba, Vincent P.
Surviving Transformation: Lessons from GM's Surprising Turnaround (2004)

I guess it will be a good book of what not to do?

by **Adamal** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:22 am

They may have a lot of companies under their name, but that also means they have a lot of overheads too....

by **sergei** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:50 am

I say this is natural selection, most of the brands that fall under GM label are building dinosaurs. If they haven't realised that SUV/oversized car is not the answer for everything, they should go down.

by **Adamal** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:54 am

Not to mention all their V8's use inefficient pushrods...

by **barryogen** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:09 am

looking at the list of names above, the ones they seems ot have a financial stake in, I can really only say that I'd miss Holden, Saab, Suzuki

Toyota hybrids?
Did Toyota help GM, or GM help Toyota?

Honda engines?
Any ideas on which ones?

by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:30 am

dont mix GMs euro brands in with their USA brands.....
Saab etc are going to be covered by local governments.

also manufactoring plants in other countrys will problem be taken over or bought out by partners.

its not as if every GM company and project around the world will suddenly cease to exsist. some will, and others will get snapped up by various concerns. (new chinese chev corvette!)

Toyota shared their hybrid stuff with GM (and Porsche)

the Honda stuff would be the Honda whatchamacallit. large 4x4 thing with honda badges, actually a GMC i think. and no i dont mean the range rover.

OMG so shiny! · by **Dell'Orto** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:33 am

The Horizon? Aka Jackaroo aka Bighorn

by **sergei** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:58 am

They had it coming. They ignored the real issues, and continued with american way (where the size does matter in wrong way - bigger must be better right?).

by **GTCRSHR** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:13 pm

sergei wrote:They had it coming. They ignored the real issues, and continued with american way (where the size does matter in wrong way - bigger must be better right?).

so thats why they are all 20 stone over weight

by **sergei** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:35 pm

GTCRSHR wrote:
sergei wrote:They had it coming. They ignored the real issues, and continued with american way (where the size does matter in wrong way - bigger must be better right?).

so thats why they are all 20 stone over weight

What the hell is a stone?

(actually I know, it is some ancient form of vaguely approximating weight)

by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:29 pm

Dell'Orto wrote:The Horizon? Aka Jackaroo aka Bighorn

ah no... i think i can spot a bighorn when i see one! (ooerr that sounds dirty)
brand new thing, couple driving round down here.
looks more like a H2 hummer with a car type boot and about the same size. i'll snap a pic next time i see one

by **cogent** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:53 pm

sergei wrote:They had it coming. They ignored the real issues, and continued with american way (where the size does matter in wrong way - bigger must be better right?).

Adamal wrote:Not to mention all their V8's use inefficient pushrods...

To be honest they (the american car industry) have pulled off some pretty amazing feats recently, I think its more a case of 'too late to the game' rather than 'hurr they never adapted or evolved'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschlei ... _lap_times

by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:03 pm

when your in the market of making passenger cars ring lap times mean NOTHING

by **cogent** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:09 pm

When you look at some of the ratings that the european Gm/Ford passenger vehicles receive, I think its pretty clear cut that the problem is not with the products being manufactured, but rather the business decisions.

by **rollaholic** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:28 pm

im sure an alfa guru was telling me the new alfa v6 is based on a GM engine.

the alfa in question is a lemon so stands to reason i guess

good riddance to bad rubbish tbh

OT - cogent i love your sig

Toyspeed.org.nz Message Board

GM looks to be dead in the water.

GM looks to be dead in the water.

Who is online