[UCI CamaroFan]

There is an interesting article regarding GM in the Wall Street Journal. They speak of how GM, in agreement with the government, decided to build small fuel efficient vehicles here in America.

Instead of choosing to build their new plant in Tennessee, where it would have been the cheapest, they decide to go to Michigan where prices for a factory would be much higher. Now, the article doesn't say this explicitly, but I am willing to bet that GM gave in to Union pressures.

The article states, "Estimates peg GM's losses on U.S.-built small cars at roughly $1,000 to $2,000 per vehicle sold in recent years."

That doesn't sound very wise from a company that is trying to come out of bankruptcy. This begs the question: How can we help GM if they refuse to even help themselves?

Article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124682720000097027.html

[BigRigMike]

I think the article answers it own questions in the last paragraph

Originally Posted by WSJ

"Michigan won the bidding by offering $779 million in business tax credits over the next 20 years, along with $130 million in federal funds for worker training. Local officials threw in additional $102 million in incentives."

I don't know what Tenn offered but I don't think it was over $200 Million total.

It is hard for me to agree with an article that says it is a bad decision for GM to build a small car in the US and that GM should be building the car as an import.

But I am not surprised that GM is not building in Tennessee after what GM went through during the congressional hearings. So I think denying Tenn. could be retribution but I think denying Wisc was a business decision.

[stovt001]

Tennessee may have indeed been passed over partly as retribution. You can hardly expect the company you didn't want to help make jobs in your state.

Originally Posted by BigRigMike

It is hard for me to agree with an article that says it is a bad decision for GM to build a small car in the US and that GM should be building the car as an import.

Why isn't it a bad decision to build in the U.S. at a loss? A good business decision is to build it where ever it can be built and sold at the best profit margin. Why should a company trying to emerge from bankruptcy voluntarily take on a loss and deal with a difficult union?

[FenwickHockey65]

Tennessee wasn't able to afford to offer GM incentives to build it at Spring Hill.

That and Tennessee senator Bob Corker openly preached for the downfall of GM for months, then started begging GM to keep Spring Hill open when it was idled. May not be the real reason, but it's still pretty ironic.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

That and Tennessee senator Bob Corker openly preached for the downfall of GM for months, then started begging GM to keep Spring Hill open when it was idled. May not be the real reason, but it's still pretty ironic.

+1. Not to drag this out...but that whole "episode" infuriated me.

[Vash]

I would say to the OP don't let the idiots ruin the Camaro. The people that designed it and build it love it and that's all that matters. The idiots along the way are just loosers and what comes around goes around.

Once the body count starts going up from these deathboxes then we will see who is dixie. Also Cobalt is made in USA and is a great safe car yet GM is throwing it away for this Cruze thing and PUMA. Why do we need a car smaller than Cobalt? Boggle..

I digress.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Vash

Once the body count starts going up from these deathboxes then we will see who is dixie. Also Cobalt is made in USA and is a great safe car yet GM is throwing it away for this Cruze thing and PUMA. Why do we need a car smaller than Cobalt? Boggle..

I digress.

Cruze is being built at the same exact plant as Cobalt. Lordstown's already being retooled. Cruze is light years better than Cobalt.

We need cars smaller than Cobalt because that's what the market calls for.

[jojohn33]

I think its a sad state when we have to offer them all of this to just stay in the states.

[Zabo]

Originally Posted by jojohn33

I think its a sad state when we have to offer them all of this to just stay in the states.

I think it's a sad state that we have to make cars smaller than the Cobalt. I've ridden too many times in my friends coupe to say that I never want to get in an accident with a car that small. It's like a shrunk-wrapped cocoon on me.. Honestly, if you want fuel efficiency, get a god damned motorcycle/scooter. Oh wait, Americans are too stupid to ride motorcycles and they're SOO LOLDANGAROZ, so lets legislate them off the roads!

We saved peoples!

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Cruze is being built at the same exact plant as Cobalt. Lordstown's already being retooled. Cruze is light years better than Cobalt.

We need cars smaller than Cobalt because that's what the market calls for.

Not only that, the Cobalt is actually kinda large for a compact. At least, it is rather long at 180 inches. Weight and width are about par for the class, and height is greater than average due to a weird ride height, but the Cobalt is not particularly compact.

"Bigger is better" is no longer the rule of the day. Common sense has prevailed, and people looking for efficient, practical transportation are seeing that small cars don't have to be penalty boxes. For urban dwellers, small cars are much easier to park and maneuver around crowded city streets. Why waste gas hauling around a larger body if you don't need the room? It may be a while before mini-cars like the Smart really catch on, but the B-segment is very hot.

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by Zabo

I think it's a sad state that we have to make cars smaller than the Cobalt. I've ridden too many times in my friends coupe to say that I never want to get in an accident with a car that small. It's like a shrunk-wrapped cocoon on me.. Honestly, if you want fuel efficiency, get a god damned motorcycle/scooter. Oh wait, Americans are too stupid to ride motorcycles and they're SOO LOLDANGAROZ, so lets legislate them off the roads!

We saved peoples!

Wait....HUH!?! You complain about the safety of compact cars, and instead propose those wanting something small should ride a motocycle instead? What the....?? soo confused. You do realize there is much more metal around you in a compact, even sub-compact car than a motorcycle, as well as more mass. Plus you have a crumple zone in a car, whereas on a motorcycle you ARE the crumple zone.

God forbid some people want efficient, sensible transportation. Some people actually like the easy of parking and maneuverability that comes with a compact or sub-compact car, not to mention the generally lower cost of ownership. I'm tired of people whining about the safety. The entire rest of the world has been driving much smaller cars all along, and the developed ones are doing just fine, as far as safety goes. Face it - unless you're driving an Abrahms tank, there will always be something larger and heavier on the road than you. Avoid the accident in the first place and you're fine.

[MrIcky]

Cobalts have pretty good overall safety ratings btw.

Pretty much every car built in the last 10 years is pretty safe overall, even the small ones. The cars themselves fold up pretty fast but the occupants are better protected then ever before, even in the Cobalt class cars.

I just hope enough changes and concessions have been made so that GM can eke out a little profit on their small cars. I guess step 1 is the car has to be desirable enough that GM doesn't have to slash the hell out of the price. I don't think the article is 100% fair on this, or perhaps I missed it- but a lot of what GM just did was to make it profitable to make smaller cars to make all the various Gov't people happy. They made a profit on large vehicles all the way up to the gas crunch last summer. My understanding is that large vehicles are already slightly profitable again.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

I just hope enough changes and concessions have been made so that GM can eke out a little profit on their small cars. I guess step 1 is the car has to be desirable enough that GM doesn't have to slash the hell out of the price.

That prospect is looking very bright. For instance...The Cruze is built, and will be sold with the explicit goal of making a profit on each one. They ritz'd it up compared to the Cobalt it's replacing, but the actual cost of the improvement vs their asking price is quite low. Similar situation with the Malibu, I believe.

Couple that with the very bright future of a 4-brand GM: their profits from healthy parts of the company don't have to be raided in order to maintain other failing brands. This is Great for profitability.

Then, they have all but eliminated 100% of their debt. So every dollar earned won't go to pay off that plus interest. It can be put back into vehicle development and design.

And finally, worker concessions. Their workforce will be on pretty even footing compared to direct competitors; this includes benefits. So no worries there, either.

I'm not sure what the authors point was beyond complaining they didn't move to Tenessee. I'm very excited about the future of GM!