|
GM declares bankruptcy (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
Im not too much of an american car fan but the new Fusion & Focus hybrid seem to be doing pretty well. Also the new Camaro is totally bad ass. That Dodge Sprinter is pretty nice with alot of cargo space & very good gas mileage for a cargo van/small truck. Escalades & alot of SUV's look cool but when you make a vehicle hybrid & the best it can get is 19 mpg... thats ed.
Still hoping to see some hybrid diesels in the states soon. |
The Sprinter is not a Dodge product is why it is fantastic. |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
The Sprinter is not a Dodge product is why it is fantastic. |
true. either way it was a wise choice to snag it from Mercedes. I think its the best thing they have going for them right now. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
true. either way it was a wise choice to snag it from Mercedes. I think its the best thing they have going for them right now. |
I totally agree. I have been seeing it a lot as a delivery van lately. Which is good for them. They need to develop more compelling products like it. Ones that are just awesome at what they do. No half-assed stuff. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| can someone answer my question lol youy ******s keep ignoring my posts |
|
|
| Krypton |
I want this, souped up...
 |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
answer my question krypton
2 posts of mine up |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Ok so what happens next? i don't think companies ever recover from chapter 11 bankrupcy. Especially if they are this big. Its just postponing chapter 7 isnt it?
someone please correct me if im wrong. how many large Asset comapnies (i was giong to say large cap but i realize their share value is 50 cents now lol) actually recover from chapter 11 and function as an independent company ?
You have to go to OTC tradind pinksheets if you want to deal with gm shares now.
Essentially they are worthless as i don't see GM comming out of chapter 11. |
Chapter 11 is not a liquidation (where all assets are sold off to pay off creditors). Chapter 11 allows companies to restructure. A company like GM is worth more operating than liquidated. It is also in everyone's interest that GM not be liquidated. Nonetheless, many will be laid off, and many factories shut down.
Think back to September 11 attacks. Several airlines went bankrupt, but still were able to come out of it. THink American AIrlines and COntenental. I believe. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
That's a silly hypothetical situation. Many people choose smaller cars for the price. I think the point of this argument is that people who drive large cars and live in the city and really don't need them are s. I don't think you're an , that's just the jist of everything :p |
lol.. I mean, come on man. I don't live in a city center like Chicago or Manhatten where a vehicle is pretty unnecessary. If I did, I'd be driving a regular size car for sure (I've driven my truck around NYC... NOT fun). And, I don't have a single office to drive to; I have to drive to a new destination almost every day, and my territory encompasses a 2-3 hour drive in any direction from Charlotte... sometimes more in special circumstances. I'd say 65% of my work is in the Charlotte metro area, but generally speaking I put about 30,000 miles per year on my truck. So, if I'm going to be in something that is my 2nd home, it damn well better be comfortable. I got no problem with people driving smaller cars... but if they want to worry about evil monster destruction causing SUV's, they should buy bigger vehicles or learn evasive driving tactics. :tongue2
The point of the whole thing is that people should be able to buy whatever type of car they want, and car companies should produce what their consumers what... and not have politicians dictate it for them. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Chapter 11 is not a liquidation (where all assets are sold off to pay off creditors). Chapter 11 allows companies to restructure. A company like GM is worth more operating than liquidated. It is also in everyone's interest that GM not be liquidated. Nonetheless, many will be laid off, and many factories shut down.
Think back to September 11 attacks. Several airlines went bankrupt, but still were able to come out of it. THink American AIrlines and COntenental. I believe. |
your right about continental, i dont think AA has ever filed for Chapter 11. Its a subsidiary of AMR though so maybe they were bought out. |
|
|
| schrödingerwin |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
(I've driven my truck around NYC... NOT fun). |
I know you're a cool guy but c'mon man no one does that, it's unbecoming and a bit rude if you ask me, but what do i know? |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
your right about continental, i dont think AA has ever filed for Chapter 11. Its a subsidiary of AMR though so maybe they were bought out. |
You are correct, but others such as Delta and Northwest have. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | | Originally posted by The17sss I don't need to... I want to, I enjoy it, and I should not have my choice of vehicles limited by some government bureacracy. It's a common aspect of freedom that's overlooked... you should check into it sometime. Do you think people want to buy and drive the types of cars that are about to be forced on them? no... which is why they are being forced by CAFE standards thanks to Obama. I spend a ton of time in my car because of what I do for work, and I love having a car with a lot of space inside and strong enough where I don't even sweat the thought of getting into an accident. When I moved from FL to NC it was an invaluable tool, and when I have to drive around the mountains of NC on certain projects in winter time, the 4 wheel drive factor is a necessity. |
| quote: | | Originally posted by The17sss So, if I'm going to be in something that is my 2nd home, it damn well better be comfortable. I got no problem with people driving smaller cars... but if they want to worry about evil monster destruction causing SUV's, they should buy bigger vehicles or learn evasive driving tactics. :tongue2 The point of the whole thing is that people should be able to buy whatever type of car they want, and car companies should produce what their consumers what... and not have politicians dictate it for them. |
There it is again, the old US ‘I’m entitled’ attitude. You want something, so you think you should be able to have it. While that attitude may have been acceptable in the ‘90s, it’s certainly not acceptable now. This concept could also be applied to jewellery, houses and clothes, but cars are different because you’re out there every day interacting with other people on the road, and the vehicle you drive has a direct effect on safety, peace of mind and hip-pocket of others, for reasons I’ll explain. To say ‘I want it’ is a disgusting attitude and one that is slowly destroying America, and indeed, the Western World.
You have a very twisted view of ‘freedom’ if you believe it means being able to drive a car you don’t need.
Putting aside the issues of your car on the road, what about your car on the environment? I’m by no means a hippie, but your car burns far more petrol than a more sensibly sized one; it costs more resources to manufacture and generally has a worse effect on the Earth. Granted, if you use take this reasoning to the extreme, then we should all be using bicycles or driving horse and cart, but people need to get around, and it’s not unreasonable to suggest that people are driving cars twice as large as they need should cut back.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Moongoose Well, if youre driving a three tonne truck and the other guy that hits you is driving a three tonne truck youre not going to be that better off as if youre driving a tiny european hatchback and the other guy is driving a tiny european hatchback :) |
Exactly. This is the same argument as with guns. If you take away guns from EVERYONE, then people’s methods of injuring one another are lessened, but the playing field is still equal, with no parties having an advantage over the other. It also applies perfectly here.
| quote: | | Originally posted by ziptnf That's a silly hypothetical situation. Many people choose smaller cars for the price. I think the point of this argument is that people who drive large cars and live in the city and really don't need them are s. I don't think you're an , that's just the jist of everything :p |
Yes, yes they are.
| quote: | | Originally posted by The17sss When I moved from FL to NC it was an invaluable tool, and when I have to drive around the mountains of NC on certain projects in winter time, the 4 wheel drive factor is a necessity. |
That’s an awful argument. There are plenty of four wheel drive sedans of reasonable size and power on the market. Subaru, Audi, Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, Mercury, Ford, Dodge, Chrysler and Lincoln all make mid-sized sedans with all wheel drive.
| quote: | | Originally posted by The17sss What do you think will happen when we're forced to drive those little lawn mowers around? Traffic deaths are going to skyrocket. God your thick. Usually you're comments are money but you're just an idiot with this one. |
Really? Take a look at this:
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cr...ooperVsFordF150
You’re just a typical exponent of the “big equals better” movement, which is an awful assumption. Here’s why LTVs and SUVs are bad:
1. Longer stopping distance.
How are you going to stop yourself rear-ending that person or sliding off that icy road when your stopping distance is twice that of a smaller, more sensible sized car?
2. Higher centre of gravity
SUVs and LTVs are far more likely to roll. Look at this study and see that cars roll over and cause fatalities 22% of the time, while for SUVs that figure is an astonishing 61%!
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/sit...ewType=standard
3. Greater weight means greater danger for other vehicles.
See study below which shows that, since 1992, LTV vs car crashes have been the highest fatality causing kind of accident out of car vs car, LTV vs car and LTV vs LTV. Note also that LTV to LTV collision deaths have risen quite steadily from 1992, while car to car deaths have dropped dramatically.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/sit...ewType=standard
4. Lower manoeuvring capabilities
I don’t need to provide a study for this. We all know that larger cars are less agile and thus less able to steer away from potential accidents.
5. Size impairs other drivers’ vision.
This is the one that annoys me the most. I’m an extremely pro-active driver and tend to look five to six cars ahead in gridlock and half a kilometre ahead on clear roads. Large cars block vision above them and around them, meaning drivers behind are unaware of traffic conditions ahead. This causes more accidents.
6. LTV size increases load on road, meaning more road maintenance is required over time.
7. LTV size takes up more space on road, meaning traffic jams are larger than need be, and less vehicles will fit in a given parking area.
8. LTVs (generally) have slow acceleration, meaning traffic moves more slowly and accidents which could have been avoided by speeding up increase.
So, even if you’re selfish enough to actually disregard that you’re more dangerous to others on the road, you should at least be able to acknowledge that you’re unsafe to yourself. While heavier vehicles may perform better when they DO crash, they are far more likely to get into crashes in the first place, as illustrated by this study:
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
It debunks your claims regarding CAFE quite well. |
|
|
|
|
