Chrysler Sebring '04 Limited Convertible By Owner 74000 Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM, Chrysler bailouts saved 2.6 million jobs

The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) has been studying the effects of the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts in 2009. Now that the US Treasury has officially sold off the rest of its stake in GM (and Chrysler has already paid back its loan), CAR has released its study on the effects of the bailout with this concluding note: "CAR is confident that in the years ahead, this peacetime intervention in the private sector by the US government will be seen as one of the most successful in US economic history."
Big words, for sure, but there's plenty of evidence to back up the claim. Bailing out GM alone saved 1.2-million jobs. If both GM and Chrysler hadn't been bailed out, US employment would have been reduced by 2.631-million jobs in 2009 and another 1.519-million jobs in 2010, according to the study. If both automakers were allowed to fail, personal income in the US would have decreased by $173.5 billion in 2009 and $110.9 billion in 2010. Instead, the study found that $284.4 billion of personal income was saved by the bailouts.

Auto Mergers and Acquisitions: Suicide or salvation?

We love the Moses figure. A savior riding in from stage right with the ideas, the smarts, and the scrappiness to put things right. Alan Mullaly. Carroll Shelby. Lee Iacocca. Andrew Carnegie. Steve Jobs. Elon Musk. Bart Simpson. Sergio Marchionne does not likely view himself with Moses-like optics, but the CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles recently gave a remarkable, perhaps prophetic interview with Automotive News about his interest and the inevitability of merging with a potential automotive partner like General Motors. Marchionne has been overtly public about his notion that GM must merge with FCA. For a bit of context, GM sold 9.9 million vehicles in 2014, posting $2.8 billion in net income, while FCA sold 4.75 million units and earned $2.4 billion in net income, painting a very rosy FCA earnings-to-sales picture. But that's not the entire picture. Most people in the auto industry still remember the trainwreck that was the DaimlerChrysler "merger" written in what turned out to be sand in 1998. It proved to be a master class in how not to fuse two companies, two cultures, two continents, and two management teams. Oh, it worked for the two individuals at both helms pre-merger. They got silly rich. And the industry itself was in a misty romance at the time with mergers and acquisitions. BMW bought Rolls-Royce. Volkswagen Group bought Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini, putting all three brands into their rightful place in both products and positioning. No marriages there, so no false pretense. Finally, Nissan and Renault got married in 1999. A successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust. But a successful marriage requires several rare elements in this atmosphere of gas fumes and power lust, the principle part being honesty. Daimler and Chrysler lied to each other. The heads of each unit, the product planners, and finance all presented their then-current and long-range forecasts to each other with less-than-forthright accuracy. Daimler was the far greater equal and no one from the Chrysler side enjoyed that. The cultures were entirely different, too, and little was done to bridge that gap. Which brings me back to the present overtures by Marchionne to GM. "There are varying degrees of hugs," Marchionne stated in the Automotive News piece. "I can hug you nicely, I can hug you tightly, I can hug you like a bear, I can really hug you." Seriously?

Question of the Day: Ever consider driving a minivan?

Since I'm supposed to know something about cars, it happens all the time: friends and relatives ask me advice about what kind of vehicle they should get. Very often, the only type of vehicle that can check every item on their wish list (e.g., hauls lots of people and stuff, gets good fuel economy, has great crash-test ratings, can take four Great Danes camping, and so on) is a modern minivan... and, of course, nobody wants to hear this. I'm not a minivan person, they will wail, and so they end up with a cramped, fuel-swilling SUV or a not-so-space-efficient minivan-in-disguise CUV. So, is it worth becoming one of those minivan people in order to get the incredible usefulness of these masterpieces of vehicle engineering, or do you hold your head high and drive something that doesn't quite meet your needs? Related Video: Auto News Design/Style Chrysler Honda Toyota Minivan/Van question of the day questions