Display:
Bloomberg.com: U.S.

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Ford Motor Co. asked Congress for a credit line of as much as $9 billion, saying it expects to break even or be profitable before taxes in 2011.

The automaker said it hopes to avoid tapping the financing and doesn't anticipate a "liquidity crisis" in 2009, barring a competitor's bankruptcy or more severe economic slump. Ford plans to sell five corporate jets and would pay Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally a $1 annual salary if the loan is used. General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC were to submit plans later today.

"We hope that we can work something out" with the automakers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters. "We don't want to throw them a lifeline if the lifeline doesn't get them to the shore." Lawmakers set hearings for Dec. 4 and 5 and may vote on an aid proposal next week.

Ford, GM and Chrysler must convince a divided Congress that their plans to shrink are severe enough to ensure repayment of $25 billion in proposed loans. Lawmakers are split on whether any aid should come from a $700 billion bank-rescue fund or Energy Department loans approved in September.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is there any specific reason why Detroit refused to bow to the growing small car demand that must have been obvious as a trend for a decade ? I mean even if they still wanted to make SUVs, coulnd't they have tooled up a couple of lines for something more european?

Why did GM so completely destroy the EV-1 ? Even if it wasn't a success in itself, why destroy all of the work ? What were they afraid of ?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 04:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but they really, really mean it this time!  I mean, how could the plan fail?

(1) Get loans from the feds.
(2) ?????
(3) Profit!@

And the Volt -- the Duke Nukem Forever/Chinese Democracy of the automotive industry -- is going to magically save the day.  And nobody could've predicted that gas prices would go up and people would buy small cars.

It's the consumer's fault, when you really think about it, not Detroit's fault.  (Yes, that argument is made quite a lot on dKos by the Detroit apologists.)

At least Ford made the right noises.  GM just went up and did a Giant Talking Penis.  "Give us $Xbn, or we all die."

And we still can't simply let them fail.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 05:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Detroit has routinely drawn up plans and built prototypes and whatnot of small cars, and every time comes away convinced that it can't make any profit off of small cars.  Not having to compete with the Japanese.

Probably something having to do with the immense difficulty they would have in bringing quality standards up to the Japanese level, something critical in a range of cars that in which efficiency and reliability are judged more closely than in the giant status/insecurity boats from which Detroit gets its profits.

Marketing, style, and design are comparatively easy.  Engineering quality and manufacturing consistency are apparently so at odds with the corporate culture that it's not even an option.

by Zwackus on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 06:13:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Is there any specific reason why Detroit refused to bow to the growing small car demand that must have been obvious as a trend for a decade ? I mean even if they still wanted to make SUVs, coulnd't they have tooled up a couple of lines for something more european? Why did GM so completely destroy the EV-1 ? Even if it wasn't a success in itself, why destroy all of the work ? What were they afraid of ?"

Not sure if you are looking for a serious answer to these questions, but if so:

They do SELL small cars, mostly imports from Korea. They're perfectly good cars with Chevy, Ford, etc. labels on them, but the profit margin on an economy car--even if imported--is much, much smaller than on a big pickup truck. I know someone who paid $50,000 for a huge pickup a couple of years ago, of which the profit for GM was probably about $30,000. Today you can walk into a dealer and get $12,000 off list price on a truck or SUV without even asking.

And the EV-1 was a great car, except for two problems:

  • It was a hand-made fiberglass car, which means EXPENSIVE to produce at all and not even possible to produce in volume (at least with the pressed steel technology currently in use by all volume manufacturers).
  • Nobody wanted to buy them. Sure, there's all this noise now about how GM et al. should have been making dinky little economy cars, but if you take a look at the sales figures for the Honda Insight, which delivers 65+ MPG without even trying, it quickly becomes obvious that there was no market for a two seat economy car in the 90s and early 2000s. There were months when Honda was only able to sell a dozen Insights across the entire globe, and it's not a particularly wierd car compared to the EV-1.
by asdf on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 08:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
True, but that was in the '90s and early-2000s.  They discontinued it too early, although few people -- even single ones -- were/are going to buy a two-seater.

And they looked like little plastic spaceships, which probably didn't help.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 09:29:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series