would you buy GM or Chrysler ?

would you buy GM or Chrysler ?

they go on banckruptcy. so your car is going to loose value.

Asked by: edwinjoel22 @ 2009-05-15 17:38:16

Answers ::
GM

Joe

I would buy a Ford; I don't wanna an undervalue car

Livin' La Vida Gay

I never saw the point in buying them before. They never really made quality vehicles. Now I just have another reason not to.

Vincent P

I'm happy with my Chevy. Its reliable, gets good mileage, is fast, and handles good.

emiller1998

if they dont make your corvette anymore the one you have or buy now will put your 4 kids through college if they a 4 years old now dont worry the usa is not going out of business and these amateurs that are running it wont be there forever

ken k

GM

Patrick

Between the two of them, I'd prefer a GM. They have better and more appealing designs, unlike the dodge sedan line ups (their truck and minivan are the only good parts).

zachash1

I prefer Fords and Mazda products.
I will avoid buying another GM product (I have owned a few, one was too many and I did not learn the first time).
I might give Chrysler a chance if I knew that there were no Mitsubishi parts in it. But having been around when Fiat was marketed in the US before, I am not so sure that Fiat can help Chrysler regain the spot in my heart that the Dodge products had in my heart or the Jeeps did in my wifes.

Old Man Dirt

GM but just cuz chrysler is going bankrupt doesnt mean u shouldnt buy there cars
You can actually get a good deal on their car since every dealer is worried about the bailout

Ermin B

Neither. I have been a staunch supporter of North American cars and manufacturers for over 45 years. And for 45 years they have been selling me slipshod workmanship and incomprehensible warranties.

It's time to give the 'other guys' a shot at my hard earned dollar. Toyota or Lexus is next on my list.

Rapid Fire

both

handyclown

Unless you have been under a rock ALL cars lose money when you drive them off the lot. It's called depreciation!!!

THE UNCOOL 1

I'll stay with ford for my truck

Nissan or mazda for a sports car.

Benny Afro

Like someone else said,I don't know of many vehicles that go up in value unless they are classic vehicles.The Jeep Wrangler is rated as the #1 vehicle that holds it's value.I just bought a new Dodge Ram 2500HD,my 3rd one since 1996 and love it.The first 1 had over 400,000 miles on it and still ran great.

toledojeeper

All company's are going to go broke. These are the Capitalist days. The people with money are only investing in money (banks and financial institutions) Greed has clouded their minds. Until the mental midgets start investing in job producing corporations again. Don't buy any thing.

wmf936

Neither.....

mokume

Now's a great time to get a good deal. If you depend on your dealer for after-sale service, find out if they're on the chopping block and then see where the nearest dealer will be. There's plenty of good car repair shops around without having to use the dealer for every little thing. I only go back to the dealer when there's a recall.

Win S

Chrysler planning to eliminate 789 of the 3200 dealerships after receiving bail out money?

Why spend billions on a corporation that was gonna eliminate jobs anyway? Now we're in debt and have job cuts.
"Why spend tax payer money on a company that laid off people anyway?" I thought that was pretty obvious, Apprently not. Dee-deedee!
The Rest of you, Thank you for your cogent, well thought out answers.
Emiller1- You have no idea of my mentality. Economics is not my area of expertise, however it seemed to me that someone could have predicted this prior to the tax payer money infusion. I feel if the public had known this prior to the bailout, the circumstances surrounding the bailouts perhaps would have been different. But according to one answerer, this "was" part of the original plan. I don't pretend to know everything, perhaps you shouldn't either.

Asked by: Buck J @ 2009-05-14 15:02:14

[Best Answer]I believe the thinking was to save as many jobs as possible by allowing the company, as a core, to survive. You have to remember that while these bailout funds were given out, I'm sure much work was done to try and predict what effect it would have, there obviously would be no guarantee of the safeguard of all jobs. If it was that easy, do you really think there would be any businesses that failed? Sure, some jobs are going to be lost and I do sympathize with those that are affected, it could have been much worse. And that's without the entire story having played out yet.

To add to my answer, many people when they think of the auto industry, they don't think of the big picture. They simply think of the assembly plants in the midwest and the dealerships. The auto industry is a lot further reaching than that. You have to think of the suppliers that provide parts to the assembly lines, the trucking companies that make their living off moving those parts from the suppliers to the assembly plants, the companies that provide the raw materials to those suppliers, etc. There's many layers of the industry that contribute to the big economic picture of the auto industry in America. While, ideally, it would have been great to not have any jobs lost at any level in these corporate structures, it's just not realistic with the realities of the downturn. I believe that the actions taken has switched the possibility of jobs lost to being in the hundred thousands in this industry alone, when it could have feasibly been in the millions or so had 2 of the "big 3" auto makers been allowed to fail without assistance.

By : Shawn C @ 1242339161

Answers ::
So what's your question, genius?

Tom J

I believe the thinking was to save as many jobs as possible by allowing the company, as a core, to survive. You have to remember that while these bailout funds were given out, I'm sure much work was done to try and predict what effect it would have, there obviously would be no guarantee of the safeguard of all jobs. If it was that easy, do you really think there would be any businesses that failed? Sure, some jobs are going to be lost and I do sympathize with those that are affected, it could have been much worse. And that's without the entire story having played out yet.

To add to my answer, many people when they think of the auto industry, they don't think of the big picture. They simply think of the assembly plants in the midwest and the dealerships. The auto industry is a lot further reaching than that. You have to think of the suppliers that provide parts to the assembly lines, the trucking companies that make their living off moving those parts from the suppliers to the assembly plants, the companies that provide the raw materials to those suppliers, etc. There's many layers of the industry that contribute to the big economic picture of the auto industry in America. While, ideally, it would have been great to not have any jobs lost at any level in these corporate structures, it's just not realistic with the realities of the downturn. I believe that the actions taken has switched the possibility of jobs lost to being in the hundred thousands in this industry alone, when it could have feasibly been in the millions or so had 2 of the "big 3" auto makers been allowed to fail without assistance.

Shawn C

Number of jobs means nothing.

The government could spend $10 billion paying every unemployed man, woman and child in America to rake leaves and mow their own lawns, but it still wouldn't create a more productive economy and get us out of depression.

The short answer is that government sucks. If you want the long answer, read some unbiased books on economics, business, and politics.

kurtiz_j

That was always part of the restructuring that the US Treasury Dept approved of.It will get worse before it gets better with at least 5 assembly plants that will be closing.Some of those dealerships have other brands besides Chrysler and will still be in business.

toledojeeper

because consumers arent buying enough cars from them, so they're basically losing money to keep these dealerships open. instead, chrysler should use the money to start building solid car lines here in the US that consumers will want to buy, thereby creating a strong american manufacturing base, quality cars at a lower price, and then sell dealership franchises. also, they should cut down on executive perks, benefits, salaries, etc. and stop sending manufacturing jobs out of the country.

Andel

See, this is what happens when children discuss economics. The idea behind the bailout was to get Chrysler to come up with a plan to be more viable in the marketplace without having to shut down. The closure of dealers, factories, and other facilities was part of the plan. The alternative was to close down Chrysler completely, eliminate all its jobs, all the jobs of its suppliers, and watch helplessly as all its assets were sold to the lowest bidders.

Me again

So don't bail them out and then all the jobs and dealerships close.

You have the UAW mentality. You would have everybody lose their jobs than just a few.

emiller1998

According to the MSNBC power lunch program pundits, the news channel looked into the rationale of eliminating 789 dealerships. According to the report their are 60 employees per dealership, this will eliminate upwards of 147,000 jobs across the country. Both GM and Chrysler have an extensive number of dealerships, which requires greater inventory and resources to pay employees. A business model no longer relevant. They went on to say, Acura has a limited number of dealerships, fewer cars on the lot, fewer employees. This is the model GM and Chrysler must transition too in order to better meet supply and demand, moving forward.
To your question, cutting one of four dealerships from coast to coast is extraordinary. Make no mistake, this is a darwinian mandate, only the strong survive. No longer can Chrysler sale 1/8 th of what Toyota sells in a year, which were regularly Chrysler sales figures and this performance level be acceptable. The use of bailout monies is to spare closure of the entire company. If the government did not step in, clearly closing GM and Chrysler completely would be a problem of biblical proportions.

mark_hensley@sbcglobal.net

Is GM and Chrysler going bankrupt?

So what's up, I haven't got the full story on this?

Asked by: Cesious Fox @ 2009-05-15 15:36:02

Answers ::
chrysler is being bought out by fiat and idk about gm other than there dropping the pontiac and saturn brand

CuzCuz

Yes.

So now you have the full story. Chrysler already declared, but GM is going to declare bankruptcy by June 1.

Firebird

Yes...some divisions will survive...but expect a very different GM and Chrysler

RStarga...

what you do not know is that CEO 's want that to happen. IF NOT why they spend the last 20 years making CRAP cars so Expensive ?
even the magazines Car&Driver and Motor Trend admits and give us the list of the worst crappy american cars and they are not a match for japanese or eurepean cars. i am going to give you some examples.

dodge omni, celebrity,pontiac 600, fiero,Aries K , jeep cherokee,trans am, camaro dead and could be revived for what? anyway is going to be too expensive.

edwinjoel22

GM is bankrupt. They took billions of our dollars months ago because they couldn't pay the bills. Where I come from that means Bankrupt. They just haven't made it official yet.

And if Chrysler's deal with FIAT falls through they've had it too.

Rapid Fire

They are not going out of business,they are reorganizing.Fiat isn't buying Chrysler,they are going to form an alliance with Chrysler.

toledojeeper

chrysler has filed and government motors will be next.

Steve

How can you get chrysler car parts?

I am looking at buying a Jeep and it includes a life long power train warranty but with Chrysler going out of business how will people who have their products be able to get parts to fix up their cars in a few years if they are no longer making parts for them?

Asked by: sowhatsyawant @ 2009-05-16 00:31:20

Answers ::
There will always be parts through aftermarket makers, at least until the vehicle is about ten years old. Many parts well after that.

Danny B

Chrysler will be obligated to produce parts for their vehicles for ten years after the last car is made. Car companies do that now. So if you have an 1999 model the company can start discontinuing parts. So us the taxpayer will be supporting Chrysler's part manufacturing if they go under.

Phill

chrysler and dodge dealers are still there. they only closed down dealers that have no potential. you can get mopar (chrysler) parts at your local dealer.

T A

Chrysler is not out of business. They are still making cars, service parts, and shipping both to dealerships where you can exchange money for them.

emiller1998

only the unlucky dealers got a letter Thursday that they were going to be shut down.you can still buy mopar parts at the dealer,soon to be fiat.

Steve

Chrysler isn't going out of business yet,and even if they did Jeep would be sold to another company.The warranties if Chrysler goes out of business will be backed by the US Government.

toledojeeper

chrysler isnt going out of business just their cutting down on dealerships

bitchyness

How does closing a dealership save cash flow for GM or Chrysler?

I thought a dealership was a privately own franchise. In other words, I thought the dealerships made profits on sales but other then inventory, I would have thought the money flowed from the dealership to automaker not from the automaker to the dealership.

Asked by: centex_ed @ 2009-05-15 13:18:01

Answers ::
If they close dealers, that's less inventory sitting around, and less orders to be filled, meaning less vehicles to be made. They basically get the cars on credit, when they sell them they pay what they owe and make some profit. No sale means they have lot's of money tied up sitting there, that They can't get money from until they sell.

James B

Yes and no. The dealerships are owned by local people, but they get alot of bonuses and incentives from the manufacturer. Also, any warranty work done at the dealer is payed by the manufacturer, not the owner.

Justin B

As it stands right now, there are too many dealerships too close to each other causing competition among all GM dealers to sell cars for cheaper so the consumer will buy from their dealership. So as some dealers close up shop and the dealerships become more sparse, prices will go up because there isn't as much competition. So short term, GM expects to lose some profit, however in the long term, the lower amount of dealers will cause a higher per-car price resulting in higher long term profits.

Kurt S

For every dealership, regardless of size and number of cars sold, there are support costs from the manufacturer. There are dealership reps who must visit each dealer, brochures and sales materials shipped to each dealer, warranty processing fixed costs per dealer, co-op advertising, sales, adminis and technician trainingetc. With fewer dealers, you lower the costs of providing services and can reduce your costs. With a fewer number of dealers selling more cars, each remaining dealer can be more financially stable and hopefully provide better customer service.

C-Tech

this is what you get for getting in bed with the democrats and obama//tell me that the feds know how to run a business//these guys took the money and have to be in the bed// lee iacocca borrowed the money but he had a plan/ the nitwits went to the dummers for the money and ended up screwed/ now obama is running the auto business and the banks and he wants to run the health business /socialism is close// get ready/he doesnt know

ken k

I'm having a difficult time understanding this as well. Having been responsible for distribution strategy for a wrieless carrier, we faced many of the same issues. The reality is this - if a dealer is not making money, they will close on their own. The free market will handle that situation naturally. Someone mentioned warranty work, GM/Chrysler will still have to pay for it - just to someone else. I don't get how this helps the car manufacturers. Actually, I believe this will hurt them.

Toyota/Honda have a lot fewer dealers. However, their natural demand (people seeking out those brands) has been higher in recent years and therefore people are more willing to seek them out. When you have weak brand demand, you have to be much more accessible. People are unwilling to drive across town to investigate you if you have weak demand. Whenever we analyzed closing a store or dealer, we had to ask ourselves what is our recapture rate. What percentage of people who would have bought GM/Chrysler at the location closing will still buy, just from another dealership. My guess is you'd be surprised how low that % really is.

My prediction is this - the spiral down will only increase with this move. Their sales will tank at a rate higher than they ever suspected and this move will be viewed as a final nail in a few years. The remaining dealers will see an increase in business for a few years but the parent companies (GM/Chrysler) will end of dying off.

Brian