Classic Chevy Truck Flatbed Vintage Arizona Survivor Advertise Drive Show 30's on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Frustrated GM investors ask what more Mary Barra can do

DETROIT — General Motors Co Chief Executive Mary Barra has transformed the No. 1 U.S. automaker in her almost five years in charge, but that is still not enough to satisfy investors. Ahead of third-quarter results due on Oct. 31, GM shares are trading about 6 percent below the $33 per share price at which they launched in 2010 in a post-bankruptcy initial public offering. The Detroit carmaker's stock is down 22 percent since Barra took over in January 2014. After hitting an all-time high of $46.48 on Oct. 24, 2017, the shares have declined 33 percent. In the same period, the Standard & Poor's 500 index has climbed 7.8 percent. Several shareholders contacted by Reuters said GM could face a third major action by activist shareholders in less than four years if the share price does not improve. "I've been expecting it," said John Levin, chairman of Levin Capital Strategies. "It just seems a tempting morsel to somebody." Levin's firm owns more than seven million GM shares. Barra has guided the company through the settlement of a federal criminal probe of a mishandled safety recall, sold off money-losing European operations, and returned $25 billion to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks from 2012 through 2017. GM declined to comment for this story, but the company's executives privately express frustration with the market's reluctance to see it as anything more than a manufacturer tied mainly to auto market sales cycles. GM's profitable North American truck and SUV business and its money-making China operations are valued at just $14 billion, excluding the value of GM's stake in its $14.6 billion Cruise automated vehicle business and its cash reserves from its $44 billion market capitalization. The recent slump in the Chinese market, GM's largest, and plateauing U.S. demand are ratcheting up the pressure. GM is one of the few global automakers without a founding family or a government to serve as a bulwark against corporate raiders. In 2015, a group led by investor Harry Wilson pressed GM to launch a $5 billion share buyback, and commit to what is now an $18 billion ceiling on the level of cash the company would hold. In 2017, GM fended off a call by hedge fund manager David Einhorn to split its common stock shares into two classes. Einhorn, whose firm still owned more than 21 million shares at the end of June, declined to comment about GM's stock price. Other investors said there were no clear alternatives to Barra's approach.

LG Chem's troubled Chevy Volt battery plant hiring once again

The Michigan battery plant known for paying its workers to do nothing has turned things around and is now hiring more workers, specifically to do something. South Korea-based LG Chem, which runs the factory to supply the Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in vehicle with its lithium-ion batteries, held a job fair recently to bring on 40 new employees in order to meet higher battery demand, according to WZZM, the ABC affiliate for Grand Rapids, MI. The LG Chem factory is in Holland, MI, about 30 miles west of Grand Rapids, and it made its first batteries last year. Prior to that, though, the factory gained notoriety after a US Department of Energy (DOE) probe found that workers there were getting paid to do, well, nothing. That's because demand for the battery packs was so low that it cost less for the plant to sit idle. The DOE was conducting the probe because of its financial grant to LG Chem. But that was then and today is today. LG Chem is looking to ramp up production in advance of the second-generation Volt. That 2016 model-year version is said to have a longer all-electric range and better performance and will ride on a new chassis, but few official details have surfaced. We will know more when we get our first look at the car at the Detroit Auto Show in January.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.