President Bush today approved $13.4 billion in emergency loans for General Motors and Chrysler, and will make another $4 billion in loans available in February. The loans are intended to keep the automakers alive until March 31, at which point the Obama administration will get to decide how to proceed.
In a press conference this morning, Bush said that he’d normally let the companies fail, since the problems have resulted from bad business models, but the recession makes urgent action necessary. “These are not ordinary circumstances. In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action,” he said.
The proposed requirements for the loans include limiting executive pay and getting rid of private corporate jets. They don’t, however, include requirements about improving fuel economy or building the next generation of automobiles. But if the companies can’t show they’ve reformed by the end of March, the federal government can demand repayment of the loans, which might lead the companies declare bankruptcy or fail altogether.
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Bob Wallace Posted 2:20 am
19 Dec 2008
If GM and Chrysler fail at this point in time it could drive America much deeper into economic bad times.
Bush is a failed president and essentially everything that's he's tried to do has turned to crap. If there is a minimal action that can be done to shift the real work to the Obama administration then we have a much better chance of success.
Obama's people have been working on these problems (at least) since Election Day. They will work through this last month of Bush's term. Then they will have two months to tighten the nuts and polish the dials on their solutions.
3) GM and Chrysler have been given an execution date. If they don't get a good plan to paper by the end of March the loans are called and they go under. Nothing like watching ones gallows being built to focus ones attention....
Permalink
racc Posted 4:35 am
20 Dec 2008
GM, by first eliminating street cars, then by resisting emissions regulations, then by conning people into buying gas guzzling SUVs have contributed more to environmental destruction than any other organization on the planet.
The better action would have been to provide retraining and extended unemployment benefits for workers while providing loans to new or existing companies willing to develop new transportation solutions that are financially viable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:50 am
20 Dec 2008
That's true, how about a hybrid strategy though? Fund Fiber Forge through carbon fiber car contracts from government with the auto makers.
Fiber forge plants could start molding doors, hoods, and body panels, even frame elements for existing models, that could keep factories going.
Maybe a spin off from GM could be funded to produce battery electric drivetrains. That way government could guide the process as it did in WW II war production. Can we clone Henry Kaiser and FDR, and bring them back, like in Jurassic Park? They could do that in their spare time.
I guess that would take too long. Does Obama know someone who could do this?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:24 am
20 Dec 2008
---
Massive restructuring of the world's transportation systems. It's a good idea. Let's do it over the next decade or so.
Up to three million people in the Upper Midwest out of work by the end of January if we don't do something right now. It's something we really don't want.
Permalink
racc Posted 5:52 am
20 Dec 2008
First of all, the automakers spend billions of dollars on advertising. The reason they do it is because it works. They created the market for SUV's. They even conned the public into believing they were safer when people were dying in rollover "accidents".
The problem is that no one is buying cars. It doesn't make any sense to keep GM alive when there is nothing for the workers to do. That is not working, that is getting paid to to nothing. It would be better to give the money directly to the people that lose their jobs rather than give it to GM for them to waste.
Don't fall for the desperate fear mongering from GM and the unions. It is amazing the PR investment they will make for $12 billion and counting.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:40 am
20 Dec 2008
My requirement of GM would be that they stop building any cars other than the Volt and the Equinox.
They should make a Volt standard hybrid initially.
Then a plugin.
And also offer the Hydrogen fuel cell model.
Same with the Equinox.
We need to start getting rid of all the old CO2 generating vehicles on our highways and swap them out with fuel cell electrics.
This is a golden opportunity to dictate to the auto industry.
"This is the essence of science...you ask an impertinent question and you're on your way to a pertinent answer." -- Fox Mulder, S1E4, "Conduit"
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:00 am
20 Dec 2008
People bought minivans for a while. Then they bought pick-ups. Then they bought SUVs.
Were those changes in buying patterns caused by automotive company advertising or did advertising budgets shift with buying patterns?
---
Now, I'm liking the role of GM defender, but...
GM has seven 30+ mpg cars in its 2009 lineup. Want to buy a new fuel efficient car when the economy comes back in a few months?
GM has the Volt, a very interesting PHEV, about ready for the market. There are a lot of people who only buy American. I'd like to see us give them the chance to try a PHEV and they might not be willing to buy a BYD from China.
Let GM go and a sizable portion of American car manufacturing goes. Not only GM, but tons of companies that supply GM.
Do we really want to send those jobs overseas?
(And please review your union history. If it weren't for unions you probably wouldn't have the occupational protection that keeps you from working 10-12 hour days, six days a week, Christmas Day off, in unsafe conditions.)
(And please check what the unions have given back. If you even suspect that GM workers are making $70 per hour....)
Permalink
racc Posted 12:00 pm
20 Dec 2008
It is the difference between pulling a band aid off fast or slow. Slow is just as painful but it takes longer. In this case, the government is wasting billions of dollars to pull it off slow.
By keeping GM alive, the government is helping to prevent innovative American companies from taking its place. Instead, companies in other countries will be the leaders in new transportation solutions. This has already happened with high-speed rail. This will cause jobs to go overseas. This will harm the country and the economy in the long term (probably the short term as well).
Permalink
racc Posted 12:05 pm
20 Dec 2008
This shows that GM is not the company that can provide transportation solutions for the future. Both their corporate culture and their financial position make this almost impossible.
They just stopped construction on the factory that was to build the motors.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:16 pm
20 Dec 2008
That's not accurate. GM stated that it would be about _ years before they expected the Volt to produce a profit. I don't recall the exact number of years, less than five.
It's not uncommon for a newly introduced product to be marketed at a loss. It takes a while to build sales to the point where one starts to recover startup costs.
And, yes, they stopped construction on part of the Volt factory. Does that mean that they have halted production or simply moved operations to another place freed up by downsizing? Don't think we know that yet.
Offering more than a half-dozen efficient models in this coming year makes them not viable? How many are BMW and Mercedes offering?
You really think a startup can replace GM inside America? Do you have any sense of the scale you are talking about?
I don't know if GM can survive. But I cannot see Tesla or Aptera or ____ growing to significant size in a decade.
GM closes and some of their business will go to Ford (maybe Chrysler). The rest will go overseas.
Permalink
racc Posted 6:31 pm
20 Dec 2008
"That's not accurate. GM stated that it would be about _ years before they expected the Volt to produce a profit. I don't recall the exact number of years, less than five."
Sure, the Volt will be a drain on GM until 2015 at least. Probably longer given the state of the economy.
You are assuming the transportation solutions are automobiles. In a resource and financial restrained world, that is unlikely.
Apple and Microsoft were not even around 30 years ago. IBM was king. Change creates winners and losers. GM is obviously a loser.
The scale is getting smaller and smaller. Even GM's supporters expect GM to shrink significantly. Who in their right mind is going to invest in a company that keeps getting smaller. Oh, George W. Bush.
A start up is far more likely to be able to generate the investment needed than GM who is burdened by its existing business and old ways of thinking and doing business. With much of the manufacturing outsourced to suppliers, it is not that hard to get into the business these days.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:58 pm
20 Dec 2008
Last new US car company to go big time?
(I'm not thinking that there are any since WW II.)
List of the startups that never made it?
(Tucker's Tin Goose, Bricklin, DeLorean, ....)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:15 am
21 Dec 2008
It should be SUV sized. Or better yet, just buy the Hypercar design GM. And install a low power plugin hybrid drive system.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:21 am
21 Dec 2008
Ford should move fast with a carbon fiber plugin hybrid F-150. E-150? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:30 am
21 Dec 2008
Except they're probably/possibly dying....
We've got two complex things happening at the same time. The move away from petroleum and the recession.
--
The Volt. Probably built for the existing US market, not the market you wish we had.
Make it smaller, lighter and you would save a little in manufacturing cost but you might drive away buyers.
Warning: Hanging out with too large a concentration of green people can put you out of touch with all the other folks. Answers have to be good enough for most if you want wide acceptance.
I look at the Volt as GM's Tesla. A demonstration that we can create a non-ICE vehicle that isn't a "golf cart".
I absolutely love what the Tesla has done in converting opinions about driving using electricity.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:05 am
21 Dec 2008
The vehicle operates in a similar fashion to other plug-in hybrids, such as the upcoming Chevy Volt, but instead of having a gas- or diesel-powered engine to extend the range of one charge, the Proterra bus uses hydrogen fuel cells. The fuel cells are fed from tanks located on the vehicle's roof, and transform hydrogen and oxygen into water vapor and electricity to charge the batteries.
The fast charge batteries, provided by the Hydrogenics Corporation, are made of lithium titanate -- and it's simply amazing that they can be recharged in 6 minutes. By the time the bus driver finishes his soy chai latte, the bus'll be good to go again.
"This is the essence of science...you ask an impertinent question and you're on your way to a pertinent answer." -- Fox Mulder, S1E4, "Conduit"
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:15 am
21 Dec 2008
I love the name of this website: Gas 2.0 !
http://gas2.org/2008/09/09/new-fiesta-gets-73-mpg-but-for ...
The new car is based on Ford's ECOnetic platform and can get 63 mpg in the city and 73 mpg on the highway. So why is it only available in Europe? It's a diesel, and Ford doesn't think Americans will ever adopt diesel cars.
"This is the essence of science...you ask an impertinent question and you're on your way to a pertinent answer." -- Fox Mulder, S1E4, "Conduit"
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:22 pm
22 Dec 2008
It just has to be lighter. Lovins' carbon fiber Hypercar is an SUV. With light weight and streamlining it takes a fraction of the hp to get the same peformance.
Most people would choose a lower power, higher mileage version. The mid-life crisis teen-age viagra popping rubber burning hot rodders could buy the more powerful versions, ok?
Those huge toyota pickups that are so popular and the F-150s could look just the same, but be carbon fiber with half the hp. You could guzzle green electricity. Just put solar panels all over your 5 car garage and workshop.
The rest of us would rather live lightly on the earth, but knock yourself out.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
ferrarimanf355 Posted 10:39 am
24 Dec 2008
No, just... no. Killing the muscle cars will kill any passion out of GM. Not everyone thinks like you, they like to have some fun while driving. Don't kill the fun.
And no, I'm not interested in the Tesla Roadster. It's too expensive, has no interesting exhaust note and Tesla Motors is on shaky financial ground.
Permalink
salman22 Posted 11:22 pm
24 Dec 2008
Salman Khan
Salman Khan
http://www.google.com/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:09 am
25 Dec 2008
You can still have your muscle. Drive your car art around on plugin battery power most of the time, fire up the gas guzzler engine Ocasionally.
You can have a nice computer simulated vroom through the sound system. This plugin hybrid adaptation of the classic muscle car saves the expensive motor too.
Think about it, how often do even motorheads burn rubber? If you are still a testosterone teen either in reality or a wannabe mid-life crisis viagra man, you can still impress yourself. The kind of people who are impressed by the vroom are not likely to know the difference between a fake vroom and a real one.
Any who are, you can fire up the real vroom for them, they will be even more impressed by the plugin technology.
on the other hand if they are hardcore destroy the earth for my pleasure folk, who would want to impress them? Only someone with their non-ethic. If that is your point of view, you are a marginal influence on the culture. And thus quite irrelevant.
Unfortunately auto execs are mainly in that category too. They need to be put out to pasture.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
ferrarimanf355 Posted 6:45 am
01 Jan 2009
"If that is your point of view, you are a marginal influence on the culture. And thus quite irrelevant."
Tell that to the millions of people who drive, modify and enjoy Camaros, Corvettes, Mustangs, Hemi 'Cudas, Challengers, and any other piece of American muscle.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:03 am
01 Jan 2009
Drive up beside them in a Tesla and lay titles on the hoods. (That's what the boldest of us used to do.)
One run and no other muscle car owner will be foolish enough to run against a Tesla. Before long ex-muscle car lovers will start pining for the incredibly powerful hum of their own ass-kicking electric.
Want to beat a Tesla with a production car? Then be prepared to plop down $1.4 million for a Bugatti Veyron Hermes. I think that's the only way you pull it off.
Permalink
ferrarimanf355 Posted 3:53 pm
01 Jan 2009
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:23 pm
01 Jan 2009
The weird looking Tango might actually be a bit faster than the Tesla. Or it might have been the driver,
Matters not. Before long your Detroit Iron will be old skool. Slow skool. People who enjoy speed will seek an electric.
(BTW, my first car was a 1951 flat head Ford. Bored, stroked, racing cam, Holly carb. I followed that with a 1957 Fury with a lot more horsepower than I could really handle as a teenager. My true love was my RX-7. I understand the love of fast machines.)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:32 pm
01 Jan 2009
No problem. Daily driving does not wear out your very expensive performance gas guzzler motor that way. All that commuting could be on battery power.
That would preserve muscle cars for coming ages. Green car laws and expensive fuel wouldn't be a problem anymore. Plus muscle car owners would get status from the greening.
Motorheads will still resist, I'm sure, just for the kick of choking the earth with burnin' rubber, nee hawww!! Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:45 pm
01 Jan 2009
Faster quarter and you're talking exotic fuel dragsters and rockets.
(Got to say, my reflexes are long past the days when I would get off alive. But one can dream....)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:12 am
02 Jan 2009
The ultimate solution for classic car people would be an electric clutch/motor combination that bolts onto the transmission. Then the shoretened driveline installs as usual, in back of the new housing.
That way the ICE could be connected straight through to the rear end in hot rod mode, and disconnected via electric clutch in plugin mode, with the electric motor driving the rear end.
A fairly simple design ought to be possible, a two position clutch, and a geared down electric motor. That would allow an easy retrofit of a lot of gas guzzlers sitting in parking lots rusting for the next 5 years too.
The old vroom crowd would love the bolt on adaptation. It's standard do-it-yourself hot rodder technology.
The easy installation of carbon fiber doors, hoods, truck boxes, fenders, and so forth could offset the extra weight of batteries and electric motor. It's a good transitional plugin hybrid design. How about a government order for 1 million government vehicles to be converted to this design per year?
That is better than a bail out, it would put auto workers back on the job immediately. And start the transition to carbon fiber car manufacturing and plugin hybrid drive systems, while utilizing existing vehicles.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink