The Wall Street Journal reports that “the U.S. Treasury have started lining up the largest bankruptcy loan ever, talking with banks and other lenders about at least $40 billion in financing for General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, in case the two auto makers need it, said several people familiar with the matter.” Although the WJS neglects to specify the level of intimacy involved, contempt for the automakers’ viability plans may soon bring familiarity with debtor in possession (DIP) funding. People familiar with someone involved in the negotiations who’s close to someone who fought with your great uncle in Verdun reveals the heartening news that the $40 billion figure includes paying off the $17.4 billion in loans to Chrysler and GM pissed away thus far. Loaning money to someone to pay off a loan we already made to them? Why does that sound so familiar? But wait! It gets better/worse.
The federal stimulus bill delivered unto America’s nascent plug-in electric vehicle industry some $12.5 billion of your hard-earned tax money for plug-in vehicles and infrastructure. I mean, why not? You gotta spend your way out of a recession, right? Politics aside, nothing. The details of the deal are coming to light, thanks to the plugged-in cheerleaders at Plug In America. The website congratulates all those who helped the government distort the market on their behalf, especially themselves.
Therefore, the historic bill, which has a tax credit of up to $7,500 per vehicle, has the potential to stimulate the sale of more than one-and-a-half million plug-in vehicles.
The President has called for one million plug-ins by 2015, and while Plug In America would like to reach that number even sooner, this provision will do wonders in helping us to meet Obama’s goal.
Perusing the February 23rd issue of AutoBiWeek brought to mind Frank Sinatra’s final concert series. My thought at the time: can someone just shoot this guy? One of the greatest singers of all time couldn’t hit a note with a blunderbuss. In AutoBiWeek’s case, we can skip the paean to their heyday (for obvious reasons) and highlight WeatherTech’s two-page spread on the inside cover. It’s only a matter of time… Meanwhile, Ford’s ponied-up to advertise their pony car. As Chrysler and GM embark on their “You Paid for It” farewell tour, one wonders if the ad for Ford’s greatest hit remix signals a dramatic return to form, or the end of the end.
What is it that differentiates good car companies from bad? Probably attitude. And by thy details [thou shalt] be known. Those tiny details and gaps slowly gather together and create financial holes. A gap here, a gap there, and soon we get a real Chrysler. Like the US economy. A trillion dollar debt here, a trillion there, and soon you lose real money. How much would it have hurt Chrysler if they spent five minutes more at their 95 Windows and at least tried not to forget to photoshop sideview mirrors on their 300 sedan for the proposed turnaround plan. They managed to insert them on interior pictures, but somehow neglected the exterior. Or do they plan to have rear-view cameras all around? Detailing gentleman! If you can’t manage a simple picture, how on earth will you manage real cars?
I remember when every liberal Northeast college professor worth his Cyprian latakia drove a Saab. The question is… why? Normally, I live by the Al Reisseian dictate that a brand must stand for one thing, and one thing only. It’s easy enough to identify the USP for most successful car brands. Mercedes = engineering. BWM = driving. Toyota = reliability. Lexus = comfort. Hyundai = cheap. But I can’t for the life of me remember what characteristic typified Saab. Practicality? Handling? No…. Quirky! Huh? WTH does “quirky” mean? Never mind that key between the seats thing. No wait, maybe that IS it. How much satisfaction did a Saab owner get from telling the valet parking attendant “Oh, the ignition’s between the seats.” Knowing (but not saying) that the key positioning was a safety-related “quirk.” Oh wait; college professors don’t use valet parking. But I reckon that somewhere in Saab customers’ collective subconscious they imagined they told a barely post-pubescent car parker where to fit the key. Yes, that’s some complicated shit right there. Which is why no one outside of Sweden could have possibly made the Saab brand a success. GM? Don’t make me laugh. Actually, do. I am genuinely sad to see Saab go. Only thing is, I went through the five stages of grief for Saab more than twenty years ago.
Today’s been rather hectic, in a Swedish go-fish kind of way. I caught sight of this Bloomberg report on a possibile Chrysler-GM shotgun marriage this morning. And, somehow, it’s still there. “Chrysler LLC may be sending a message to President Barack Obama’s autos task force by saying the ‘best option’ for survival is a merger with General Motors Corp. that both sides have labeled dead.” ChryCo spinmeister insists that Bloomberg’s got it wrong: “We are in exclusive talks with Fiat.” Now that the supposed deal with Nissan is dead. And the one with Chery. And the previous talks with GM. Speaking of which, The General’s aide de camp, PR spinmeister Steve Harris, also ruled out an Alliance—I mean, alliance. Yes, well, JR didn’t want to marry Cally either. (You could say this doesn’t bode well for either automaker.) Now, some scary stuff . . .
USA Today’s car coverage is normally a fairly sensible part of a fairly sensible newspaper. But the Motown meltdown has created major distortions in the force. USA Today’s piece “Readers tell us why they stand by their American cars” is odd, from any angle. Clicking on the “enlarge” button of a homo-erotic picture of a guy in combat pants posing in front of a Buick Riviera is only the beginning. Right from the start of the article, it’s clear that scribe Chris Woodyard is so far out of the news loop he might as well check if Elvis is on the moon with him. Either that or he’s having a bad flashback, man. How else can you explain his bell bottom jeans-era take on American cars?
Trollhättan – As a result of GM’s strategic review of the global Saab business the Saab Board announced today that it will file for reorganization under a self-managed Swedish court process to create a fully independent business entity that would be sustainable and suitable for investment.
The reorganization is a self-managed, Swedish legal process headed by an independent administrator appointed by the court who will work closely with the Saab management team. As part of the process, Saab will formulate its proposal for reorganization, which will include the concentration of design, engineering and manufacturing in Sweden. This proposal will be presented to creditors within three weeks of the filing. Pending court approval, the reorganization will be executed over a three-month period and will require independent funding to succeed.
Red light camera supporters insist that the devices are needed to prevent the common and deadly T-bone style of accident at intersections. In practice, however, automated ticketing lenses are more often positioned to photograph a different type of violation, one that rarely causes accidents. A review of US Department of Transportation statistics shows that an average motorist could drive a billion miles—the distance from Earth to Jupiter and back—before being involved in an accident that resulted from a motorist making a rolling stop on a right-hand turn.
Recent Comments