"Well, the stuff I said Hinrichs said in a video, I watched the words come out of his mouth."
Questy, how do the people at Ford feel about Joe Hinrichs? Just curious.
4. The mortgage crisis and subsequent credit melt down.
Now before anybody begins, GM was clearly vulnerable and that is indeed, management's fault. But the market for new cars dropped by nearly 50% in a few months and in a capital intensive, high fixed cost business like the automotives, that was the final straw.
As it works out in the end, it was the best possible thing for GM and its sustainability. The mountain of debt that was accumulated would have been a serious drain on the company for decades.
"The Gigafactory was supposed to be finished in 2017 in order to produce enough batteries to support the volume of Model 3's Elon was expecting to sell, but now the plant is not expected to be finished until 2020. I wonder if there is a "Plan B" for batteries for Model 3 production?"
I could be wrong, but didn't they say they would launch in 2017 and reach full capacity in 2020?
"Is this a voluntary recall? I can imagine enough of these have failed in Teslaa to warrant, but maybe the part manufacturer has seen these fail in GM products and is alerting Tesla, who being more responsible than GM is doing the recall. Chevy is next."
This is a GM voluntary recall. No injuries have been reported. This problem was detected in warranty analysis. Maybe Tesla will follow.
"If you search for "cable style seat belts", it appears that some of the buckle side seat belts are anchored by a cable. That's the only thing I can find."
Typically, this is hidden by a plastic sheath. Apparently that's what they are talking about.
"I would think someone in management would have to approve or disapprove any engineering change."
You think?? Is this something new you're trying?
If you search for "cable style seat belts", it appears that some of the buckle side seat belts are anchored by a cable. That's the only thing I can find.
I don't get it. I've taken seats out and seatbelts out. All seat belts I've seen have been bolted to the floorpans somehow. "
Me too. I'll see what I can find on line.
"A steel cable that connects the belts to the trucks can bend when the driver sits in the seats. Over time it can wear and separate, and if that happens, the belts could come loose."
Sounds more like an engineering issue to me...possibly supplier quality. Do you know the difference between what engineering does vs management?
[["GM to recall over 1 million pickups to fix seat belt problem. not a problem. Again it looks like a management mistake, not workers on the line]]
What was the problem?
"The structural parts are glued together and heated to 200 degrees forming a chemical fusion between the pieces. Apparently, the only bolts that are used simply hold the parts together during the cure, and then are removed afterward. The part will break long before the bond."
Which is the same procedure that will happen in a Ford dealer or independent bump shop. Sounds kind of iffy to me.
"Do you really believe that Ford beat GM to market with aluminum? That GM didn't know what Ford was up to? Maybe Wngr can convince you that it was a conscious decision, for good or ill, to use high strength steel."
This hype about aluminum bodies is a bit of a mystery to me. All carmakers have been making aluminum hoods, trunk lids, and suspension parts (upper and lower control arms) for years. Ford did expand the use of aluminum body panels, and I'm sure GM will follow for weight savings, but I'm wondering if Ford would do it the same way again for the following reasons:
- We know now they had a difficult start up that cost them thousands of trucks. Aluminum is difficult to fabricate and join.
- They have to be disappointed that it didn't give them a mileage advantage. The Silverado and F150 basic trucks have nearly identical FE ratings.
- The Ford is about 450 pounds lighter than a Silverado, but when both are equipped with comparable V6's(nearly identical HP, and the Chevy has 50 ft-lbs more torque), the mileage is the same.
- Aluminum is more expensive and difficult to repair in the field.
Adrian was talking about some safety test that Ford was better in. I sincerely doubt that aluminum body panels were responsible for that. The structural components are more in play in crush tests.
As I said, as we get closer to the new CAFE standards I'm sure that GM will follow suit, but it apparently hasn't given Ford any advantage.
"So, instead of 25 years worth of gas, that $15,000 you give GM for the Volt over the Cruze is 12 years of gasoline, assuming $4/gal."
I have yet to see a hybrid or even electric vehicle make any sense when evaluated on a pay back to the owner basis. That's the reason they only represent a small portion of the total market.
But the car companies have a different objective in making these cars. In 2025, less than 10 years from now, CAFE standards for cars dictate that they must AVERAGE 54 MPG. Not possible with a ICE driven car. Clearly alternative propulsion systems will be needed. The industry has already spent billions in research and will spend billions more. They need to get field experience with these systems. The need for using the great American test bed is important, thus, they make these cars at a loss to gain that experience (having said that, I don't believe the loss is anywhere near what you may be hearing).
This is the reason that FCA's Sergio Marchionne is desperately trying to find a partner for his company. They have not invested in R&D like the other bigger companies have, and are facing extinction in less than 10 years. And if his plan is to buy the technology, the companies that have already made the sacrifice will be interested in recouping some of that expense and it won't be cheap.
In 2015, FCA spent 4B Euros ($4.5B) vs $7.5B for GM and $6.7B for Ford. Incidentally, Tesla's R&D was $718 million.
"Wngr, you're letting facts and figures get in the way of mallen's perfectly good rhetoric."
I'm sorry. It's a character flaw on my part.
"The remainder of the loan was exchanged for 500 million shares of stock which the government subsequently sold for $39B in several transactions."
Sorry, that should read "1 billion shares of stock". The government owned 60.2% of GM. So, 60.2% of 1.68B shares = 1 billion shares.
"They started with approximately $54 Billion of other people's money. So, let's say they have $60 Billion in on hand it will be easy to figure out. $6 Billion. If they have less than $54, that means they are living of the fat and eventually they will once again go broke."
Actually the loan was for $49.5 billion. GM paid back $6.7B in cash with the last installment coming in April, 2010. The remainder of the loan was exchanged for 500 million shares of stock which the government subsequently sold for $39B in several transactions.
No, they don't have $54B in cash on hand. That would be kind of stupid, don't you agree? They did what you would do if you got a $100K mortgage. They invested in assets. If you didn't have that $100K in the bank, would the money be blown? No, it would be in the form of an asset (your home).
GM's asset base went from $91B to $194B in the years 2008-15. The net book value of the the company went from -$86.2B in 2008 to +$40.3B in 2015, a difference of +$126.5B.
See how that works?
"I don't know how much profit the "New GM" made. Hard to pin them down..."
Maybe I can help. Actually not hard at all.
2010-15 NI = $40.8B
"GM Share outstanding on these dates.
Data for this Date Range
Jan. 27, 2016 1.544B
April 22, 2013 1.375B
Sept. 30, 2014 1.60B
Jan. 28, 2015 1.610B"