GM JANUARY SALES UP 14%, 146,825 UNITS SOLD

[DGthe3]

Oh, and Chevrolet was the best selling brand in America. For the last few years it's been Toyota

[AngryAmish]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Competition figures edited, turns out toyota is doing worse than we thought.

*cackles with glee*

With the streak of luck they are having I'm pretty sure Toyota could f*** up a wet dream at this point.

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

The competition...

Ford Motor Company: Up 24%, 112,406 units sold
Toyota: Down 16%, 98,796 units sold
Honda: Up 2.9%, 67,479 units sold
Nissan: Up 16.1%, 62,572 units sold
Chrysler: Down 8%, 57,143 units sold
Volkswagen: Up 41.4%, 18,019 units sold
Mercedes Benz: Up 45.3%, 15,158 units sold
BMW: Up 5.77%, 15,140 units sold
Audi: Up 37.9%, 6,510 units sold

Everybody up except Chrysler and Toyota. Man, how long can Chrysler hold on? They are taking a beating.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by BackinBlackSS/RS

The competition...

Ford Motor Company: Up 24%, 112,406 units sold
Toyota: Down 16%, 98,796 units sold
Honda: Up 2.9%, 67,479 units sold
Nissan: Up 16.1%, 62,572 units sold
Chrysler: Down 8%, 57,143 units sold
Volkswagen: Up 41.4%, 18,019 units sold
Mercedes Benz: Up 45.3%, 15,158 units sold
BMW: Up 5.77%, 15,140 units sold
Audi: Up 37.9%, 6,510 units sold

Everybody up except Chrysler and Toyota. Man, how long can Chrysler hold on? They are taking a beating.

They beat Toyota and weren't that far behind Honda. Also, when you look at the daily sales rate (there were 2 more selling days in January 09), they were down by less than half a percent. Not bad ... not good either, but definitely not bad.

[bpmurr]

Originally Posted by Tal

Your logic falls a bit short, the better those companies do the quicker the money gets payed back. Ford and GM are both making many great products which are easy to root for while Chrysler has many mediocre products and their new Fiat overlords. I still hope Chrysler can at least stabilize sometime soon, they just aren't near as easy to root for as the other two IMO.

No I understand what you're saying. I just don't like seeing them do it on the tax payers dime. I think it's unfair to Ford.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by bpmurr

No I understand what you're saying. I just don't like seeing them do it on the tax payers dime. I think it's unfair to Ford.

They're not getting federal money to offer massive incentives on their cars. GM is selling because they designed and engineered great cars that were set to be released in 2009, the exact same situation that Ford is in. They didn't get billions of dollars and then poof the Camaro, Equinox, SRX, LaCrosse appear. For the most part, these vehicles began life about 5 years ago (around the same time that Wagoner and Lutz came to GM).

[bpmurr]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

They're not getting federal money to offer massive incentives on their cars. GM is selling because they designed and engineered great cars that were set to be released in 2009, the exact same situation that Ford is in. They didn't get billions of dollars and then poof the Camaro, Equinox, SRX, LaCrosse appear. For the most part, these vehicles began life about 5 years ago (around the same time that Wagoner and Lutz came to GM).

You do realize it took money to develop these vehicles. Part of that debt was subsided by Federal Funds. Don't get me wrong I think it's great that quality products are selling.

Hold on I just realized I'm talking to a guy from Canada with no stake in the game from a US tax payer perspective. End of discussion.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by bpmurr

You do realize it took money to develop these vehicles. Part of that debt was subsided by Federal Funds. Don't get me wrong I think it's great that quality products are selling.

Hold on I just realized I'm talking to a guy from Canada with no stake in the game from a US tax payer perspective. End of discussion.

So do you think that GM/Chrysler should have got the bailout at all?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by bpmurr

You do realize it took money to develop these vehicles. Part of that debt was subsided by Federal Funds. Don't get me wrong I think it's great that quality products are selling.

Hold on I just realized I'm talking to a guy from Canada with no stake in the game from a US tax payer perspective. End of discussion.

First off, 10% of the money they got came from the Canadian federal government, an amount proportional to our relative population. Secondly, another 10% is from the province of Ontario with 1/3 the population of Canada. When GM went bankrupt, ownership was divided according to how much each government provided. In effect, as in individual, I hold 4x as much stake in GM as you do. So you can stop the whole 'my tax money' line when talking to someone from Ontario, Canada alright?

Now, go back and read what I was saying. These cars have been in development for years. Nearly everything about these products was paid for before they took any federal money. Not after. BEFORE. On top of that, neither the elimination of debt through bankruptcy nor government ownership has anything to do with the products they are selling or how well they are selling, other than a possible increase government fleet sales. But I don't think that they move too many Camaros or Terrains that way.

[bpmurr]

Originally Posted by a_Username

So do you think that GM/Chrysler should have got the bailout at all?

No I don't think they should have. It's clear by Ford's example it wasn't required. Nobody is too big to fail. I don't think GM would have anyways (Chrysler maybe). They just would have gone into bankruptcy sooner to clean things up. You don't know how steamed I was about Chevy dealers asking over MSRP for a new Camaro knowing that they are still in business thanks to the people there to buy them.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

First off, 10% of the money they got came from the Canadian federal government, an amount proportional to our relative population. Secondly, another 10% is from the province of Ontario with 1/3 the population of Canada. When GM went bankrupt, ownership was divided according to how much each government provided. In effect, as in individual, I hold 4x as much stake in GM as you do. So you can stop the whole 'my tax money' line when talking to someone from Ontario, Canada alright?

Now, go back and read what I was saying. These cars have been in development for years. Nearly everything about these products was paid for before they took any federal money. Not after. BEFORE. On top of that, neither the elimination of debt through bankruptcy nor government ownership has anything to do with the products they are selling or how well they are selling, other than a possible increase government fleet sales. But I don't think that they move too many Camaros or Terrains that way.

Someone just got the verbal smackdown!

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by bpmurr

No I don't think they should have. It's clear by Ford's example it wasn't required. Nobody is too big to fail. I don't think GM would have anyways. They just would have gone into bankruptcy sooner to clean things up.

Can I get a little political here DG? I won't post anything before you give me a yay or nay.

[bpmurr]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

First off, 10% of the money they got came from the Canadian federal government, an amount proportional to our relative population. Secondly, another 10% is from the province of Ontario with 1/3 the population of Canada. When GM went bankrupt, ownership was divided according to how much each government provided. In effect, as in individual, I hold 4x as much stake in GM as you do. So you can stop the whole 'my tax money' line when talking to someone from Ontario, Canada alright?

Now, go back and read what I was saying. These cars have been in development for years. Nearly everything about these products was paid for before they took any federal money. Not after. BEFORE. On top of that, neither the elimination of debt through bankruptcy nor government ownership has anything to do with the products they are selling or how well they are selling, other than a possible increase government fleet sales. But I don't think that they move too many Camaros or Terrains that way.

GM hasn't been making money for years. The development for the cars might have been "paid" for at the expense of other debt. That debt was paid off by tax payer money. That's my point. I'm not saying the Camaro is courtesy of the US tax payer. I'm pulling this thread off topic so I'm going to refrain from posting anymore about it.

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by bpmurr

GM hasn't been making money for years. The development for the cars might have been "paid" for at the expense of other debt. That debt was paid off by tax payer money. That's my point. I'm not saying the Camaro is courtesy of the US tax payer. I'm pulling this thread off topic so I'm going to refrain from posting anymore about it.

If it wouldn't have been for the banking crisis GM would have mortgaged their soul away just like Ford did and not been in debt to the tax payers. As much as I know it pains you to admit it- luck WAS involved!