The worst part on the GM bailout is all those stupid ass commercials that came back. I had a 2000 Chevy Silverado it had 184,000 when I got it. I put 120,000 more miles on it with only regular maintenance, it was the one that got through the line with the good parts on it. Well I got a 2005 GMC that is nothing more then a money pit, the latest is a loud lifter tick. No easy fix there the engine will have to be completely torn down to replace a lifter. No more GM for me.
You can stand up a factory and train people to screw parts together anywhere, so that, to me, is not as important as where the world HQ is, because that's where they decide where and how they'll be reinvesting their profits. For Ford and GM, that's Michigan; for everybody else, it's overseas. (FWIW, Ford's highest build quality plant in NA is in Hermosillo, Mexico.)
Well I'm glad you found a truck you are happy with and meets your needs. However in my experience, GM nor Ford has held up to the abuse of farm work and one ford didn't even hold up for highway duty.
Since switching to dodges, we have not needed to replace a truck every 100k miles. The earliest dodge is a 2003 and has been great but I believe the previous generation of dodge was significantly inferior to everything after 2003.
But hey, what do I know? It's not like I'm driving up and down the paved highway every day testing the limits of my machine. Just driving off road every day with a 1500lb cube feeder and a 1200lb bale on the back. As always, YMMV.
Well that's a pretty good test!
Also, about this "unemployment would have cost over 10 billion already" nonsense. Did you guys really think that GM and Chrysler were going to cease to exist through bankruptcy? All bankruptcy would have done is restructure those companies back into profitability. All that has been accomplished by the bailout is kicking the can down the road to the next crisis. Mark my words, there will be another bailout the next time they hit a rough patch.
"Too big to fail."
GM might have been restructured, but Chrysler was Dead Man Walking. Their only hope was what happened--being acquired by another manufacturer.
I don't have a problem with Uncle Sam backing their play, but what they should have done was what Sen. Corker (R-TN) originally proposed: have the Treasury put up the loan guarantees for pre-packaged bankruptcies. That would have avoided the potentially catastrophic disruption of the automotive industry without us taking the ownership position and subsequent $10.5 billion bath (not counting what we lost in selling Chrysler to Fiat). The biggest problem GM and Chrysler had at the time (aside from the piss-poor management that had gotten them into their respective holes) was that the credit markets were frozen, so there was no private financing available for a pre-pack bankruptcy, but you can't tell me that the same gov't that forced healthy banks to take TARP funds they didn't want (so they could pass the "stress test" audits) couldn't have coerced firms into underwriting the restructuring of GM and restructuring/sale of Chrysler...
While I'm not really knowledgeable about what financing was available at the time, but Ford did operate from private loans. I wonder where they found that source?
Also, with regards to the idea that the bailout saved so much in unemployment and such by "saving jobs," one has to calculate in the entire amount of the bailout, not just the 10 billion that won't be repaid. With nearly 50 billion in taxpayer funds given to GM, I doubt that those costs for unemployment and other benefits would have amounted to that much. So, if GM had been allowed to do normal bankruptcy, it might have cost the taxpayers less.
Oh, and I really like it when people try to say that government spending is an "investment." As far as I'm concerned, that is pure drivel.
While on the farm, my experience with GM and Dodge was totally different from Farmerbyron's. It just goes to show that we all have differing views as to what works and doesn't.
Oh, and Ford is still the number one selling truck for over 3 and a half decades.
Also, with regards to the idea that the bailout saved so much in unemployment and such by "saving jobs," one has to calculate in the entire amount of the bailout, not just the 10 billion that won't be repaid. With nearly 50 billion in taxpayer funds given to GM, I doubt that those costs for unemployment and other benefits would have amounted to that much. So, if GM had been allowed to do normal bankruptcy, it might have cost the taxpayers less.
Oh, and I really like it when people try to say that government spending is an "investment." As far as I'm concerned, that is pure drivel.
While on the farm, my experience with GM and Dodge was totally different from Farmerbyron's. It just goes to show that we all have differing views as to what works and doesn't.
Oh, and Ford is still the number one selling truck for over 3 and a half decades.
Again, how do you figure???
The LS platform is arguably the most powerful, dependable and easiest to work on gasoline engines ever produced. And it's a Rod motor!!! Show me ANY 323 CI motor that can put out close to 400 HP with minimal bolt ons and some tuning. Last 300k miles and get 20+ MPG in a full size truck.
The doggy 5.4 Mod motor couldn't come close, the Hemi not a chance...
The EchoBoost, a short lived power kiddy motor and the new 5.0 ain't no better than the 5.4
And what's funny about that, GM has two bigger even more poweful motors in their truck lineup than the 5.3
But NO ONE ever wants to compare their truck motors to a GM 6.0 or 6.2
GM trannys.... No major issues there
The 4L60 had sun shield problems but that was fixed in the 4L65. The 4L80 was pretty much a straight cut geared TB400 which is a tank of a tranny. The newer 6L tranny seems to be doing well too. Never hear to much ford tranny issues either, but we all know Dodge cant do a truck tranny to save their life.
So again.... How are they way behind???
Terry, I wonder how much of that has to do with what time frame we are talking about. I know previous generations of Dodge have been shoddy but the newer offerings have been very good. Every GM I have been in for the past decade comes across as cheep azz junk with numerous electrical problems and burnt out headlights. Fords have been one of the nicest looking exterior and interior but the powertrain has been lacking in power, reliability and MPGs. I don't have much experience with the Tundras but everyone I have heard that has one, likes it. The Dodges have been good to us so far on all fronts. The interior isn't quite as nice as the Ford IMO but a far sight better than GM and sure, there are things that break but never anything catastrophic like before. Door latches, u-joints. Easy crap like that. GM has made good vehicles before like the 88-98 1500 is probably the best half ton truck ever made.
I've got at least 5 trannys between GM and Ford that dispute this assertion. (granted these were all about a decade ago)
As far as the Dodge auto trannys, we have only used a stick until the last one I just bought this spring. Guess we will see if Dodge has learned a bit over the years on the auto trans. Wish the Aisin would have been available in the 3/4T Ram.
Similar threads
