Bye bye, GM

[Masherbrum]

if i'm correct, ford took no money from them.

He's misinformed, ignore him. 

[CAP1]

And as far as the government relinquishing control over GM, don't hold your breath.

that'll happen at about the same time we get out of iraq.  

[sluggish]

GM has more cars that average better than 30MPG than any other manufacturer. And the Malibu is at least equal to the Camry in build quality. The problem with GM is their business model stinks. It has for years. And with the government in charge, it will stink worse.

[SEraider]

It's too bad that we are hanging on by a thread to keep our machine tool capability alive in this country.  I hope manufacturing makes some sort of a comeback for this country's sake.

[sluggish]

It's too bad that we are hanging on by a thread to keep our machine tool capability alive in this country.  I hope manufacturing makes some sort of a comeback for this country's sake.

Unfortunately Raider, most people cannot comprehend how important an American owned manufacturing base is to the security of our country.

[68Wooley]

GM has more cars that average better than 30MPG than any other manufacturer...

...on sale in America.

Unfortunately, outside of America, 30mpg isn't seen as much of a target and neither will it here in the US when gas gets back to $5+ a gallon.

The Opel / Vauxhall brand is the only one in the GM portfolio that does economical cars reasonably well, but they're about to be sold off. I don't really count Daewoo in the 'done reasonably well' category.

FWIW, Chrysler are pretty screwed in this respect too. Ford, if they can meet US crash and emissions regulations, have a great European line-up which walks all over the Japenese competition and only loses out to German opposition on snob appeal.

[Masherbrum]

The best things Ford did, with the exception of Jaguar, were make the brands they bought, "better".   Land Rover had the chitty Lucas Electrics that were not only garbage, but fire hazards at times.   Ford brought the Bosch engine management system to that brand and the reliability improved.    Ford improved the Aston Martin brand.     They were sold because they just weren't profitable.   

Volvo and Ford have probably been the most "united" European/American Auto merger in history.   Sharing of designs, safety implementations and no red tape/politics.    The same cannot be said of GM and Saab.   GM mishandled them just as bad as their own brands.

Most see Ford selling Volvo, although I don't.   There is no reason to sell them. 

[CAP1]

He's misinformed, ignore him. 

I AM?

[Masherbrum]

I AM?

Not you, read it again.   

[BnZs]

In my experience Fords seem to just keep running while being treated by crap. Must be all the "behind-the-times" engineering. I wish they had quite "engineering" on F-150s in the '70s. I could keep one of those running from now 'till doomsday. You get into the '80s...they start putting crap in them I don't understand and don't know how to work on. But still pretty good, run 'em every darn day trucks. Of course, full disclosure, never owned one that wasn't ~10 years old, so don't really know what they are like now.

[CAP1]

Not you, read it again.   

sorry dude......i've been getting hammered here at CAP.....took a quick second to read this bbs....and for a second thought you meant that towards me......re-reading it, i realize that you're telling me to ignore him.



 

[CAP1]

In my experience Fords seem to just keep running while being treated by crap. Must be all the "behind-the-times" engineering. I wish they had quite "engineering" on F-150s in the '70s. I could keep one of those running from now 'till doomsday. You get into the '80s...they start putting crap in them I don't understand and don't know how to work on. But still pretty good, run 'em every darn day trucks. Of course, full disclosure, never owned one that wasn't ~10 years old, so don't really know what they are like now.

in the 70's, ford used the duraspark ignition systems. they sucked. in the 80's they used EEC3, and MCU, then EEC4. EEC3, and MCU sucked. EEC4 was actually a VERY good engine management system. most hated it, due to the difficulty in diagnosing it. they thought, that since ford didn;t set it up to give datastream information, that it was a poor system. it was actually lightyears beyond the gm or chrysler control systems. and using your head, and diagnostic equipment properly, was VERY easy to diagnose. todays techs are spoiled with the control systems we have now.
 ever since the EEC4 system, fords control systems have had the ability to adapt, or learn. gm and chrysler systems did not. that's what the PROM chip was in the gm computers. it was the programming.(i think)
 ford computers didn't need this. i've replaced many many more gm computers, than fords and chryslers combined.

  now on the other hand, fords have their common problems, like the DPFE sensors, and sticking IAC's,

[Masherbrum]

sorry dude......i've been getting hammered here at CAP.....took a quick second to read this bbs....and for a second thought you meant that towards me......re-reading it, i realize that you're telling me to ignore him.



 

    

[Masherbrum]

In my experience Fords seem to just keep running while being treated by crap. Must be all the "behind-the-times" engineering. I wish they had quite "engineering" on F-150s in the '70s. I could keep one of those running from now 'till doomsday. You get into the '80s...they start putting crap in them I don't understand and don't know how to work on. But still pretty good, run 'em every darn day trucks. Of course, full disclosure, never owned one that wasn't ~10 years old, so don't really know what they are like now.

The Mid 80's-late 80's F series were garbage, I'll give anyone that.   But they still have the best overall drivetrain on the planet today.   Especially the 250's and 350's, they still use the Dana's.   Their rear axle bests anything that Dodge can put out.    The only decent axle from GM is the 14 bolt, but even it has it's issues.

[68Wooley]

The best things Ford did, with the exception of Jaguar, were make the brands they bought, "better".   Land Rover had the chitty Lucas Electrics that were not only garbage, but fire hazards at times.   Ford brought the Bosch engine management system to that brand and the reliability improved.    Ford improved the Aston Martin brand.     They were sold because they just weren't profitable.   

Volvo and Ford have probably been the most "united" European/American Auto merger in history.   Sharing of designs, safety implementations and no red tape/politics.    The same cannot be said of GM and Saab.   GM mishandled them just as bad as their own brands.

Most see Ford selling Volvo, although I don't.   There is no reason to sell them. 

Land Rover and Aston were profitable. Aston was sold to raise capitol. Land Rover was the sweetener for someone to take Jaguar off their hands. I agree that both were much better companies after Ford than before though.

Ford did make Jaguar better as well. It just took them longer and cost more than they ever thought. Ironically, they've bailed just as they finally seem to have gotten it right. The XK and XF are stunning and the new XJ is due out soon. Those are all the fruits of Ford's work. Its now OK to be under 50 and drive a Jag because they are cool. They've also done well in customer sat surveys for a number of years (although I think these surveys are more a representation of a customers expectations of a vehicle rather than the reality i.e. buy a Kia and you'll rave about it if the engine starts each time you turn it whereas buy a Merc and you'll slate it if the leather isn't the right kind of soft). All that said, with the current economic climate, it'll be some time before Jag turns a profit so offloading them was probably the right thing to do. Can't help feeling Tata are going to make a killing from them though.