GM to Ally with Nissan-Renault? Probably Not Going to Happen (10/4/2006)

[YSSMAN]

The General Motors Board of Directors today endorsed a recommendation by the company's senior management that it engage in exploratory discussions with Renault and Nissan regarding GM's potential participation in an alliance among the three companies. "The GM Board of Directors authorized management to proceed with its plan to consider ideas the other two companies have and to weigh the potential benefits of such an alliance in order to assist the Board in its decision making," said GM Director George Fisher. "Management will keep the Board well informed and the directors, of course, will closely monitor the process to assure that its outcome serves the best interests of all GM shareholders. The Board continues to fully support the company's North American turnaround strategy, and we encourage management to also continue its efforts to conclude a satisfactory resolution of the issues associated with the Delphi bankruptcy and to complete the pending GMAC transaction."

The Board action was taken in response to a request made by Tracinda Corporation, one of GM's larger shareholders, and to expressions of interest made public by the respective boards of Renault and Nissan.

GM Chairman Rick Wagoner will lead the company's effort to conduct exploratory talks with the managements of Renault and Nissan.

"General Motors has a lot of experience with different types of alliances, and some have provided significant benefits to GM's competitive position and financial strength," said Wagoner. "We will enter into discussions with the managements of Renault and Nissan with an open mind - eager to hear their ideas of how an alliance between our companies might work to our mutual benefit. Given the complexity of any potential relationship, it has to be carefully considered on its merits before coming to any conclusion. We are committed to an objective and thorough review of that potential."

Wagoner noted that when the idea of joining an alliance with Renault and Nissan was first suggested to him, he promptly contacted Carlos Ghosn and the two leaders agreed to meet at a mutually convenient time to have an initial exploratory discussion.

"We periodically receive interesting proposals and we owe it to the company and its shareholders to explore how they might work, and to objectively weigh the potential benefits and issues that each might present," Wagoner said. "That is exactly what we recommended to the GM Board in this specific case, and exactly what it has agreed we should do."

In the meantime, both Wagoner and Fisher noted that it is crucial for General Motors to stay focused on implementing its North American turnaround strategy.

"We announced this strategy about one year ago, and have made tremendous progress in implementing all the key initiatives," Wagoner said. "The positive results from these major actions are already evident. We have some major items that we are working on right now that are important to our continued progress, including the Delphi restructuring and the GMAC transaction. So there's plenty more work to do to return our North American operations to sustained profitability. We remain focused on achieving this as quickly as possible."

...Exploratory my ***...

I'm still not convinced that it is a great idea, but we will see what happens. As long as Nissan-Renault doesn't get into GM's business, and the same goes for GM to them, I'd be a happy camper. Technology sharing is the way to go, and thats fine with me, but I don't want to see Ghosn geting into our business.

 

[1X83Z]

Everyone here realizes it's just a ten percent stake right? It's not much to see much of anything develop in the way of products.

 

[Scaff]

Technology sharing is the way to go, and thats fine with me, but I don't want to see Ghosn geting into our business.

Care to explain why?


Scaff

 

[Poverty]

^^because it will be as american as lamborghini is italian if the venture happens?

 

[1X83Z]

It'd be better than GM failing, which presently seems to be the trend.

If Nissan were part owners, they wouldn't be allowed to build vehicles as crappy as that. Of course, Kerkorian shouldn't have allowed it either. Hell, stockholders in general shouldn't have allowed it. Hell, General Motors shouldn't have allowed it. But then we should expect no less:

Man, GM's been pretty bad for pretty long.

 

[Scaff]

^^because it will be as american as lamborghini is italian if the venture happens?

Not valid as far as that point was concerned.

The tie-up was not the point at issue here, Ghosn getting involved was. Personally I think he may be exactly what they need, and as M5P says would it be better for GM to carry on as is?

Regards

Scaff

 

[Tornado]

You know what would suck? If GM screwed themselves with this like they did with Fiat. While we mention Fiat, they are probably kicking themselves silly right now.
I find it funny that Kerkorian just doesn't buy all of GM (which he does have enough money to do) and do whatever the heel he want with it instead of frittering around trying to run it through the board members.
I must say though, a Infiniti G35 4WD with a 5.3 in it sounds like
However, have any of us thought what this may do to GM? Think about the recent push for the ZETA architexture? If they merged, would they keep that or the FM platform? And what would happend to the Camaro concept if GM now has the 350Z?
Also, Autozines take on this:

Carlos Ghosn to rule the automotive world ?
GM's largest shareholder billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, who holds 10 percent shares of the company, is trying to forge an alliance between GM and the Renault-Nissan group. It is known that he discussed with Renault-Nissan's chief Carlos Ghosn for the possible alliance and received positive feedback. Ghosn has got the approval from the boards of both Renault and Nissan for further discussion. He also revealed the group could take 20 percent shares of GM – 10% by Renault and 10% by Nissan.

However, it is too early to say whether the alliance or merger could be made. Rumors have that GM's CEO Rick Wagoner and most senior executives oppose to the idea from Kerkorian. It is obvious that Wagoner will lose his job if Carlos Ghosn get control of GM.

Since Ghosn successfully rescued Nissan from the edge of bankruptcy and turned it into one of the most profitable car makers, he has been the most sought CEO in the car industry. Last year Bill Ford Junior invited him to head Ford, only turned down by Ghosn as he was to take over the double CEO in Renault and Nissan. If GM join under his name, he will be the most powerful manager in the world's industry, heading a French-Japanese-American superpower with a combined annual output of 15.3 million cars and trucks (almost double of Toyota's figure) and a workforce of 640,000 people - although undoubtedly a big part of that will be slashed by Le Cost Killer.

I believe Ghosn has this ambition, but there are many obstacle lying in front of him. Currently both Renault and Nissan are facing sales slide. Ghosn will need to concentrate on the "Renault Commitment 2009" reform program while stop Nissan from sliding. Whether he has the energy to tackle the deep-rooted problems at GM is questionable. Taking over the troubled American giant could also be a big risk, as it is losing money and market share at an alarming rate.

Nevertheless, when Renault took over Nissan in 1999, many analysts gave the same warning (including me). Ghosn took the big risk and turned it into big reward. Can he repeat once more?

This introduces a new variable: The current Renault sales slump, no doubt un helped by the Avantime and Vel Satis.

 

[JCE]

You know what would suck? If GM screwed themselves with this like they did with Fiat. While we mention Fiat, they are probably kicking themselves silly right now.
I find it funny that Kerkorian just doesn't buy all of GM (which he does have enough money to do) and do whatever the heel he want with it instead of frittering around trying to run it through the board members.
I must say though, a Infiniti G35 4WD with a 5.3 in it sounds like
However, have any of us thought what this may do to GM? Think about the recent push for the ZETA architexture? If they merged, would they keep that or the FM platform? And what would happend to the Camaro concept if GM now has the 350Z?

That G35 with the 5.3 would be called the G53. Nissan and Infiniti have used the liter displacement sizes to name some of it's models (and in Infiniti's case all of them) since the Datsun era. 👍

 

[YSSMAN]

Care to explain why?


Scaff

GM is currently on a roll with it's own restructure plans at the hand of Wagoner and his buddies. Shifts at every brand are occouring, models and platforms are being cut, and new models are being phased in. I would worry most about GM losing control of projects like the Camaro and the rest of the Zeta program given Nissans "exelent" FM structure.

...Granted, they would say in the begining that GM and Nissan-Renault would operate as seperate entites, but given how Carlos seems to think he knows more than everyone else. Granted, there is a lot to gain, but there is also a lot to lose. If we thought this current round of job cuts were bad, I can't imagine what the lord of cutbacks would be doing if he started running the show at GM.

A partnership between GM and Nissan-Renault would be great, and I'm all for it, but only to certain extents. I would rather have something like the GM-Toyota joint venture with models like the Matrix/Vibe and Prizm/Corola from a few years back along with sharing some engine development, but thats all I think GM would stand to gain from Nissan, as they are a radically different company compared to them.

...But could you imagine a company where the Corvette and GTR would have to share the top-slot for high-performance car? What about the Renaultsport Clio and Astra VXR? The Altima and the Commodore?

Technology sharing is what SHOULD happen, hell maybe share a model or two, but I don't want to see a full merger. GM stands to lose too much at the moment, while Nissan-Renault has all the room to gain.

It may come down to what the investors have to say, and if it does, I'm a bit scared. Most American automotive folks in the press aren't too keen on the whole deal, but people who's only focus is money, they want it to happen NOW. The early possibilites were great, but it just doesn't seem like it will be all that it is cracked up to be now.

 

[1X83Z]

That G35 with the 5.3 would be called the G53. Nissan and Infiniti have used the liter displacement sizes to name some of it's models (and in Infiniti's case all of them) since the Datsun era. 👍

Infiniti has not used liter displacement on all of its models. This is an extremely little-known fact, but it's a true one. Check it: while the original Q45 used a 4.5-liter V8, its replacement, which was crappy, used a 4.1 (one of the only uses of a 4.1-liter engine in the USDM) yet was also called the Q45. Of course, when that was replaced, its replacement used a 4.5-liter, making the names correct again.

That's not the only time that happened though - the original QX model, which debuted in 1996, was known as the QX4 through 1999 despite using a 3.3-liter V6, which propelled it to 60mph in a husky 11.2 seconds. Because that engine was obviously ****, in 2000 they changed it to Nissan's 3.5-liter V6, which is the only engine used in any Infiniti/Nissan, from the Sentra up through the Titan, yet its name remained the same - QX4. It wasn't until the QX4 was FINALLY replaced that it got a name - and engine - upgrade, to QX56, which used the 5.6-liter V8.

Anyway, this is totally moot, but I just wanted to inject my minutely-detailed knowledge into the conversation.

 

[Scaff]

GM is currently on a roll with it's own restructure plans at the hand of Wagoner and his buddies. Shifts at every brand are occouring, models and platforms are being cut, and new models are being phased in. I would worry most about GM losing control of projects like the Camaro and the rest of the Zeta program given Nissans "exelent" FM structure.

A restructuring plan that a large number of people are questioning the effectiveness of, and quite a few of them would appear to be shareholders.

...Granted, they would say in the begining that GM and Nissan-Renault would operate as seperate entites, but given how Carlos seems to think he knows more than everyone else. Granted, there is a lot to gain, but there is also a lot to lose. If we thought this current round of job cuts were bad, I can't imagine what the lord of cutbacks would be doing if he started running the show at GM.

You know that CG think he know better that anyone else how? Are you on first name terms with him?

You may not like his methods (few in Japan did), but to try and deny that they were effective is simply daft.

A partnership between GM and Nissan-Renault would be great, and I'm all for it, but only to certain extents. I would rather have something like the GM-Toyota joint venture with models like the Matrix/Vibe and Prizm/Corola from a few years back along with sharing some engine development, but thats all I think GM would stand to gain from Nissan, as they are a radically different company compared to them.

I honestly think that GM has a lot more to gain from Renault-Nissan that a bit of platform sharing, all this talk of how much RN would gain and how little GM will gain I could accept if GM was currently a strong powerhouse in the industry. However they are not, they are a company in trouble, with a supplier network in trouble and competitors closing in.

...But could you imagine a company where the Corvette and GTR would have to share the top-slot for high-performance car? What about the Renaultsport Clio and Astra VXR? The Altima and the Commodore?

Why not? Plenty of other companies operate in the same way and have conflicting models, how many 'hot hatches' does the VAG group have? DC both have flagship supercars, I could go on. As an argument it does not hold water, the Corvette and GTR appeal to totaly different buyers and a market place could certainly support both with little risk of canabalistic sales.

Technology sharing is what SHOULD happen, hell maybe share a model or two, but I don't want to see a full merger. GM stands to lose too much at the moment, while Nissan-Renault has all the room to gain.

Tech sharing alone rarely makes for a succesful partnership, it need to develop beyond that if cultural differances are not to cause a problem. Its not with full mergers that culture causes a long term problem, but more so with straight tech sharing. Witness GM / Fiat and DC / Mitsubishi.

It may come down to what the investors have to say, and if it does, I'm a bit scared. Most American automotive folks in the press aren't too keen on the whole deal, but people who's only focus is money, they want it to happen NOW. The early possibilites were great, but it just doesn't seem like it will be all that it is cracked up to be now.

Now that rings a bell, seems like I heard exactly the same thing a few years ago when the Renault/Nissan deal first started off. It was widely said that it would be the end of Nissan and possiably Renault as well.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Roo09511]

GM Board Votes for Renault-Nissan Talks
By TOM KRISHER, AP


DETROIT (July 7) - General Motors Corp.'s board has decided to explore an alliance with Renault SA and Nissan Motor Co., bowing to pressure from dissident billionaire shareholder Kirk Kerkorian who has chafed over the pace of the turnaround plan at the world's biggest automaker.

Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner will lead the talks, which stem from a proposal by Kerkorian.

In a teleconference meeting held Friday, the board authorized the company's management to consider the proposal and "weigh the potential benefits of such an alliance in order to assist the board in its decision making," board member George Fisher said in a statement.

"General Motors has a lot of experience with different types of alliances, and some have provided significant benefits to GM's competitive position and financial strength," Wagoner said in a statement. "We will enter into discussions with the managements of Renault and Nissan with an open mind - eager to hear their ideas of how an alliance between our companies might work to our mutual benefit. Given the complexity of any potential relationship, it has to be carefully considered on its merits before coming to any conclusion."

Nissan and Renault issued statements saying that they look forward to starting the talks soon.

GM shares rose 28 cents to close at $29.48 on the New York Stock Exchange. They have been trading in a 52-week range of $18.33 to $37.70.

Legal experts and analysts said the GM board had no other option but to study Kerkorian's proposal. Without such action, the board likely would have faced shareholder lawsuits, they said.


Wagoner said that when the idea of joining with Renault of France and Nissan of Japan first was suggested, he contacted Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of both companies, and the two agreed to meet. The meeting could take place as soon as July 14, when Ghosn reportedly will be in the Detroit area.

"We periodically receive interesting proposals, and we owe it to the company and its shareholders to explore how they might work, and to objectively weigh the potential benefits and issues that each might present," Wagoner said.

Kerkorian's company, Tracinda Corp., issued a statement saying that it is pleased with the board's action.

"We believe that the upcoming meeting between Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Ghosn is a good first step, but a full and objective evaluation of this unique opportunity will require establishment of a board committee that receives independent financial and legal advice," the statement said.

Fisher, retired chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak Co., said the board will monitor the talks and make sure they serve the best interest of all GM stockholders.

The Nissan and Renault boards each endorsed the discussions after Tracinda disclosed the potential alliance in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission June 30.

Gerald Meyers, the former chairman of American Motors Corp. who now teaches at the University of Michigan, said the board had no choice but to say it would consider the proposal.

"Due diligence - that's the magic term," he said. "It's required, or else they are subject to shareholder suits."

Meyers said the board was right not to go any further than it did. Jumping into an alliance would only distract from the company's turnaround plan at this point, he said.

"It puts it off to the side ... and lets them go ahead and do the large work, which is save themselves," Meyers said.

The board would have responded in the same manner even in the case of a hostile takeover attempt, said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University Law School professor and former attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"They don't have to agree to this, and they could even come back with a counterproposal, but there's no requirement that they have to respond with anything more than 'We studied it and we don't consider it best for the company,"' Henning said.

Analysts and dealers who know Wagoner have said that he likely is against the proposal, instead preferring to let his turnaround plan play out. Last week, the company announced that 35,000 hourly workers will retire or take buyouts, helping it to reduce production capacity and close 12 plants by 2008. It has received health care concessions from the United Auto Workers union and is coming close to resolving cost problems at Delphi Corp., GM's largest parts supplier that the automaker spun off into a separate company in 1999.

Yet it has suffered from declining profits, high labor costs and growing competition from Asian automakers.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the union was extremely concerned about the proposal.

"We're seeing a further erosion of good jobs in the country should this come about," he told WJR-AM in Detroit on Friday, before the board's decision. "The entire complexion of the auto industry in the future will be determined by this."

But Gettelfinger said he did not believe an alliance would go through.

"I do trust that Rick Wagoner and his team can get this behind him as quickly as possible and stay focused on what they were really starting to make inroads on and that's moving General Motors forward," he said.

David Larcker, an expert in corporate governance at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, estimated it would take at least a year to study the proposal.

"Just the data collection exercise and the number-crunching would take a considerable amount of time," he said, adding that there are also complex legal and regulatory issues to sort through.

"It would be astounding if they didn't go through the process in a rigorous and thoughtful manner. Ultimately, they'll be called to justify what they did by shareholders and big institutional holders."

Associated Press writers Sarah Karush in Detroit, Laurence Frost in Paris and Chisaki Watanabe in Tokyo contributed to this report.


07/07/06 16:27 EDT


Just a little bit more info from the AOL Money and Finance section.

 

[niky]

I'm certainly on the cautious side about it. Like I've said... AutoExtremist's blaming (hehe, blaming) of Nissan's turnaround on new model offerings is kind of one sided, considering that the bulk of their sales still included... actually, still include many outdated models.

Ghosn's solutions aren't always elegant or pretty, but he's focused, and people actually believe in him.

But it's the problems that Nissan is still facing at the moment that makes me feel that there's not much for GM on the technical side of the merger. Nissan's quality and reliability are in see-saw right now. GM already has both European and Japanese sources of technology, but they've never really capitalized on it... until lately, as platform sharing and cross-shopping amongst GM subsidiaries has helped them reduce development costs and overhead. Any technical sharing from Renault or Nissan will only show dividends very far down the road. Look how long it took for Nissan to start coming out with "Renault-ized" cars.

The best that may come of this is if the actually do bring Mister hack-n-slash Ghosn to the table at GM and he helps them do what they're doing... but faster. I doubt that's going to happen, but if investors get desperate, they may see some merit in this plan...

Oops... missed the punch... ^^^ that suggests that they did pass the proposal on to Wagoner and Company already. I guess we'll know in a few months time whether this'll pan out or not. Look at it this way... whether a buy-in by Renault is good for GM or not, it'll be great for stock prices.

 

[Scaff]

I'm certainly on the cautious side about it. Like I've said... AutoExtremist's blaming (hehe, blaming) of Nissan's turnaround on new model offerings is kind of one sided, considering that the bulk of their sales still included... actually, still include many outdated models.

Yes some of it does almost sounds as if Nissan would have been quite fine if Renault hadn't bothered to get involved. The simple truth is that without Renault's involvement Nissan may not even exist today.

Ghosn's solutions aren't always elegant or pretty, but he's focused, and people actually believe in him.

Hence the reason he was seen as a villan in Japan at first, of course he now has something of a cult status in Japan now. He did what a Japanese manager would never have done given the situation, which made him very unpopular. However as niky says, it worked.

But it's the problems that Nissan is still facing at the moment that makes me feel that there's not much for GM on the technical side of the merger. Nissan's quality and reliability are in see-saw right now. GM already has both European and Japanese sources of technology, but they've never really capitalized on it... until lately, as platform sharing and cross-shopping amongst GM subsidiaries has helped them reduce development costs and overhead. Any technical sharing from Renault or Nissan will only show dividends very far down the road. Look how long it took for Nissan to start coming out with "Renault-ized" cars.

The design cycle of a modern car is about as short as it has even been, and its still a good 18-24 months on average, as such any tech sharing is always going to be a long term aim rather than a short term one.

Simply takeing tech and shoe horning it into a car or range it was never designed for is rarely a good move.

Platform sharing takes even longer (as in the Renault Nissan case) as any current or future models working of an established platform will almost certainly have to run there lives to actually make a return on the investment made.

The best that may come of this is if the actually do bring Mister hack-n-slash Ghosn to the table at GM and he helps them do what they're doing... but faster. I doubt that's going to happen, but if investors get desperate, they may see some merit in this plan...

The problem some members of the GM board may have is that the shareholders are already seeing merit, once even the chance of this happening was made public, GM share prices rose, from a sharholders point of view that has serious merit.

Regards

Scaff

 

[YSSMAN]

Hmmm, very interesting...

With all eyes on the proposed GM-Renault-Nissan tie-up, it's easy to forget Carlos Ghosn was only recently in talks with the Dearborn automaker about working together. According to the Detroit News, Ghosn first turned to Ford when he began his search a little over a year ago ford a third member of the Renault-Nissan alliance. Those talks didn't lead anywhere, but Ford later approached Ghosn about the job of running the world's No. 3 automaker. He declined, but expressed interest in acquiring Ford's Volvo Cars. That, too, never happened, but Ford and Ghosn remained on good terms. Now, some analysts feel Ford may be a better choice than GM, if Renault and Nissan are serious about a third partner. "It's interesting to think about the idea. Could Ford step in here with an alliance with Renault and Nissan?" UBS analyst Robert Hinchliffe said in a teleconference with investors Monday. "I wouldn't count it out. Ford could be a better partner."

So it looks like "Carlos the Great" was looking to get into the US market any way he possibly could...

 

[Onikaze]

I too think Ford would make better use of this alliance than GM does.

I'd rather see Ford get some Nissan tech, and vice versa, anyways.

 

[niky]

I kind of doubt it... Ford already has one leg in the Japanese market, and with the recent resurgence of Mazda, Nissan probably has something to learn from them.

But Nissan's VQ... hmmm... while Mazda has the I4s covered and Ford the V8s, and Volvo the I5s and transverse V8s, Nissan's V6 is probably the one engine that Ford would have been itching to get a hold of, if not for their current Ford-GM project, the new 3.5 that's going in the next Escape.

Heck, it could work out. The only players that directly compete with each other are Mazda and Nissan. Nissan lends Ford/Mazda a real V6... imagine "base" Mustangs with a VQ35DE... nah... they'd cost too much... but it'd be cool... Mazda lends Nissan the Miata/RX8 platform, which they use for the "Urge"... (heck, it'd be lighter than the FM they're currently basing it on)... Nissan reciprocates with the FM platform for Ford's medium sized trucks and vehicles... the possibilities... mmmhhhmmm.

I'll say it again... a VQ35DE (or 30, if the 35's too powerful for the V6 model) base Mustang... ought to be good for a laugh... and a whole lotta sales.

 

[Tornado]

I too think Ford would make better use of this alliance than GM does.

True, but I would think that GM would want it more, becuase GM has admitted that they are in hot water. Ford still seems to be in denial about it.

 

[Onikaze]

I actually meant for Ghosn to do his thing to Ford.

GM has some good stuff coming down the pipeline, Ford is treading water.

 

[YSSMAN]

Lutz > Ghosn, IMO, so send Carlos to Ford...

 

[Tornado]

Lutz > Ghosn, IMO, so send Carlos to Ford...

The problem is though, that GM still needs a large lesson in cost cutting. And as great as Lutz is...he knows nothing about cost cutting. GM needs a K-car like mantra right now more than they need a "RWD is king" one. Letting Ghosn just go to Ford would be a ghastly mistake on GM's part, if and only if they can get him to help. If they can't, they shouldn't go out of their way.
Also, have we looked at the other potential savior of American buisiness? Roger Penske has been recently parachuted into Detroit to help turn some buisiness' around, so he is another possibility.

 

[YSSMAN]

Penske could do a lot of great things too, but to put everything in perspective, it is my belief that if GM or Ford is to have a full recovery, we need to have "car guys" like Lutz or Penske at the helm. Building cars that they know people would want, not what the shareholders want is something that SHOULD happen, and unfortunately it hasn't yet.

There was a story a while ago somewhere about Penske being approached to head one of the Big Three companies, sort of, but nothing ever came up with it. Too bad really, as he could do a lot for GM or Ford.

 

[Onikaze]

I don't think America needs more K-Cars.

We're possibly entering the last days of cheap ass gas, it's time to have one great RWD V-8 bonanza.

Let the Muscle Cars have another chance to play, America wants them!

 

[Sniffs]

okay, the nutshell, here, boils down to "everyone's afraid of Goshn because he'd wipe american Icons off the map" well, guess what, people...we're allready wiped off the map in everything but the truck and performance market...and the truck market is starting to choke under the gas prices. i think GM needs a bit of hack and slash...on MODELS. mabey he oughta jump on ford, kick the family out of all the nooks and crannies, and let FoMoCo actually MOVE ON...in america, that is.

 

[YSSMAN]

Since when weren't American cars a force in the luxury market? What about the family-sedan classes? America is just as compeditive as it ever was, so I don't see what the problem is having American car fans fear "Carlos the Great" destorying everything that we have worked twards for the last century.

 

[a6m5]

I too think Ford would make better use of this alliance than GM does.

I'd rather see Ford get some Nissan tech, and vice versa, anyways.

And Nissan has worked with Ford before. Whatever happened to Toyota-GM Alliance anyway? Personally, if GM doesn't want any part of Nissan-Renault Alliance, I think Ford should step right in to take its' place and try negotiating. I don't believe Ford is doing as bad as GM right now, but like Toronado said, I too think Ford is kind of in denial about their current status.

 

[LittleBahamut]

I just have to come back to this thread after carefully wondering and thinking about this GM alliance.

I think it is already too late for GM. They are a poisoned company waiting to be hanged by the next generations of people. Too many times have I heard about GM or domestic cars in general being unreliable cars compared. It is like this stereotype that is constanly brought up everywhere I go. Sadly I will now agree with the stereotype.

I have been working at Pepboys part time right now and I got to say that GM have some poorly designed cars. They are always coming to us with problems such as starting and overheating. I honestly don't care very much for how some of you can go ahead and talk about some of GM's fantastic system they have on the cars, but the fact still remains.

THEY ARE STILL UNRELIABLE!

GM is going to have to really try HARD to change the mindset of the next generation people who mostly now think that japanese cars are simply superior in terms of reliability and drivability.

 

[a6m5]

How old are these GM cars? I know about the stereotypes, and GM has nobody to blame but themselves, since it was their own vehicles that created it. But I think we all agree that they've been working their way out of that. Their quality and reliability rating's been improving, and quite frankly, I think GM can shed its' crappy image in another decade or so. Of course, they have to improve their finances as well in order to pull it off.

 

[YSSMAN]

I just have to come back to this thread after carefully wondering and thinking about this GM alliance.

Okey-Dokey!

I think it is already too late for GM. They are a poisoned company waiting to be hanged by the next generations of people. Too many times have I heard about GM or domestic cars in general being unreliable cars compared. It is like this stereotype that is constanly brought up everywhere I go. Sadly I will now agree with the stereotype.

Unless you are living in crazy California, there is still plenty of hope for GM. Honda and Toyota have certainly gained marketshare on GM, Ford and the like, but when you look at the cars that most people drive, they are generally American are they not? What cars are icons here in the US? The Corvette, Viper, Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Escalade, Silverado, F-150, Ram, etc. Four listed were GM products, and they stand to gain more popularity with the new Astra, Kappa kiddies, Outlook, Aura, Zeta sedans and coupes, etc.

I have been working at Pepboys part time right now and I got to say that GM have some poorly designed cars. They are always coming to us with problems such as starting and overheating. I honestly don't care very much for how some of you can go ahead and talk about some of GM's fantastic system they have on the cars, but the fact still remains.

THEY ARE STILL UNRELIABLE!

I'd like to hear about these instances, as generally speaking, most GM cars and trucks that my family have owned lasted longer than most of our Nissans and Toyotas over the years. If you look at the current listing of reliable cars, I belive Cadillac and Buick are right at the top with Lexus, Toyota all the way back in fifth, with Honda in toe, Chevrolet immediately after.

...The Japanese automakers have been slipping to my friend, and with the next-gen RWD sedans hitting the street very soon, I expect the game to change in America's favor quite easily.

GM is going to have to really try HARD to change the mindset of the next generation people who mostly now think that japanese cars are simply superior in terms of reliability and drivability.

They are trying hard, and for the most part, it has been working. Cars like the Cobalt SS and GTO get plenty of street cred these days, and the Corvette is becoming one of the top supercars worldwide in Z06 form. What more do you want? A big "H" on fenders with a 2.0L i-VTEC engine under the hood?

American cars can compete, and it has been proven over, and over, and over again in every major automotive magazine here in the US. The only places where you might hear otherwise are the far-left Import magazines that only care about how many turbos they can slap on a K-series engine. American automakers can not only offer more for generally less money, insurance rates are also lower, and down the road you can expect to pay less for replacement parts as well. The only problem is poor residual values, but on most of the "good" models, that isn't a problem.

 

[a6m5]

Right on. I love the cheap shot at the import fans. They just never get old, it's amazing. Keep up the good work! 👍👍[/sarcasm]