If you don't read Scott Burns, you should. His column today has a
very memorable line. He's talking about various things that he
predicts are going to happen. He also says that most of the economic
soothsayers are so far behind it's outrageous. For instance, the most
recent issue of Business Week has on article on "The New Frugality".
He let his subscription expire in mid 2008 as a frugality measure.

Well, here's the quote:

"Cerberus, which already owns Chrylser, will take over GM and Ford.
This will happen beacus it's the only poetic thing to do.

After all, if the gates of hell ae guarded by a three-headed dog named
Cerberus, what better name could we have for the three-headed dog that
guards the gates of Detroit?"

--
- dillon I am not invalid

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams come true.
Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which
will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no
matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

 

On 11 Jan, 18:31, Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpy...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> If you don't read Scott Burns, you should. His column today has a
> very memorable line. He's talking about various things that he
> predicts are going to happen. He also says that most of the economic
> soothsayers are so far behind it's outrageous. For instance, the most
> recent issue of Business Week has on article on "The New Frugality".
> He let his subscription expire in mid 2008 as a frugality measure.
>
> Well, here's the quote:
>
> "Cerberus, which already owns Chrylser, will take over GM and Ford.
> This will happen beacus it's the only poetic thing to do.
>
> After all, if the gates of hell ae guarded by a three-headed dog named
> Cerberus, what better name could we have for the three-headed dog that
> guards the gates of Detroit?"
>
> --
> - dillon I am not invalid
>
> When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams come true.
> Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which
> will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no
> matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

So Cerberus is another name for Bush?

 

"Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1bekm45lqt4bi9e1tb9gf3po9t6herpr4f@4ax.com...
> If you don't read Scott Burns, you should. His column today has a
> very memorable line. He's talking about various things that he
> predicts are going to happen. He also says that most of the economic
> soothsayers are so far behind it's outrageous. For instance, the most
> recent issue of Business Week has on article on "The New Frugality".
> He let his subscription expire in mid 2008 as a frugality measure.
>
> Well, here's the quote:
>
> "Cerberus, which already owns Chrylser, will take over GM and Ford.
> This will happen beacus it's the only poetic thing to do.
>
> After all, if the gates of hell ae guarded by a three-headed dog named
> Cerberus, what better name could we have for the three-headed dog that
> guards the gates of Detroit?"

I can see GM & Chysler merging. Hit chapter 11 in a packaged way, smash
them together and get some real managment and more realistic union
contracts. Downsize the overhead and lean up, with more intense and real
automation efforts.

I don't think GM is going to die, in fact a renewed GM through chapter 11
will be competative and sustainable. But the GM CEO and executive need to
be repalced. I saw the letter sent to suppliers from the GM CEO, what a
joke. Proof positive this is organized extortion of the tax payer.

But Ford? Not sure unless the Ford Family gives up control. My guess is
not. Ford is in the best shape of the three and if they can just whack
costs down some more and keep the production of quality up doing it they
just might make it! But a lot of ifs, but Ford has a better idea, don't
bilk your customers via the tax system. They are off to a good start.

 

"Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce6339ff-4343-4f59-80b6-40f50ddba832@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Jan, 18:31, Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpy...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> If you don't read Scott Burns, you should. His column today has a
> very memorable line. He's talking about various things that he
> predicts are going to happen. He also says that most of the economic
> soothsayers are so far behind it's outrageous. For instance, the most
> recent issue of Business Week has on article on "The New Frugality".
> He let his subscription expire in mid 2008 as a frugality measure.
>
> Well, here's the quote:
>
> "Cerberus, which already owns Chrylser, will take over GM and Ford.
> This will happen beacus it's the only poetic thing to do.
>
> After all, if the gates of hell ae guarded by a three-headed dog named
> Cerberus, what better name could we have for the three-headed dog that
> guards the gates of Detroit?"
>
> --
> - dillon I am not invalid
>
> When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams come true.
> Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which
> will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no
> matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

So Cerberus is another name for Bush?
--------
Actually, Carlyle is another name for Bush and Bin Laden. Bush and Osama's
Saudi/Muslim brother have ties with Carlyle, the ones that spun off Alliston
transmission for billions of profits in the process of striping GMs good
assets. It is known this has been going on for years, package GM for
welfare. Just like Chrysler Cerberus had $11B cash at the end of October
that no one can find these days.
-----------
GMC - Government Motors Corruption
Where profit comes from tax payers

GMAC - Government Money Assisted Corruption
Money for Free!

 

"Canuck57" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Y7wal.15441$Nv1.6455@newsfe03.iad...
>
> "Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ce6339ff-4343-4f59-80b6-40f50ddba832@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Jan, 18:31, Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpy...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> If you don't read Scott Burns, you should. His column today has a
>> very memorable line. He's talking about various things that he
>> predicts are going to happen. He also says that most of the economic
>> soothsayers are so far behind it's outrageous. For instance, the most
>> recent issue of Business Week has on article on "The New Frugality".
>> He let his subscription expire in mid 2008 as a frugality measure.
>>
>> Well, here's the quote:
>>
>> "Cerberus, which already owns Chrylser, will take over GM and Ford.
>> This will happen beacus it's the only poetic thing to do.
>>
>> After all, if the gates of hell ae guarded by a three-headed dog named
>> Cerberus, what better name could we have for the three-headed dog that
>> guards the gates of Detroit?"
>>
>> --
>> - dillon I am not invalid
>>
>> When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams come true.
>> Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which
>> will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no
>> matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.
>
> So Cerberus is another name for Bush?
> --------
> Actually, Carlyle is another name for Bush and Bin Laden. Bush and
> Osama's Saudi/Muslim brother have ties with Carlyle, the ones that spun
> off Alliston transmission for billions of profits in the process of
> striping GMs good assets. It is known this has been going on for years,
> package GM for welfare. Just like Chrysler Cerberus had $11B cash at the
> end of October that no one can find these days.
> -----------
> GMC - Government Motors Corruption
> Where profit comes from tax payers
>
> GMAC - Government Money Assisted Corruption
> Money for Free!
>
>
>

Maybe this will help: zapatopi.net/afdb/

Mike

 

Thus spake "Canuck57" <nospam@nospam.com> :

>
>"Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:1bekm45lqt4bi9e1tb9gf3po9t6herpr4f@4ax.com.. .
>> If you don't read Scott Burns, you should. His column today has a
>> very memorable line. He's talking about various things that he
>> predicts are going to happen. He also says that most of the economic
>> soothsayers are so far behind it's outrageous. For instance, the most
>> recent issue of Business Week has on article on "The New Frugality".
>> He let his subscription expire in mid 2008 as a frugality measure.
>>
>> Well, here's the quote:
>>
>> "Cerberus, which already owns Chrylser, will take over GM and Ford.
>> This will happen beacus it's the only poetic thing to do.
>>
>> After all, if the gates of hell ae guarded by a three-headed dog named
>> Cerberus, what better name could we have for the three-headed dog that
>> guards the gates of Detroit?"
>
>I can see GM & Chysler merging. Hit chapter 11 in a packaged way, smash
>them together and get some real managment and more realistic union
>contracts. Downsize the overhead and lean up, with more intense and real
>automation efforts.

Lose a couple of duplicate lines. Pontiac and Chevy are almost
identical in both lines and prices. Take the trucks out of Chevy and
put them in GMC. But they have to keep Chevy, in some sort or
fashion. Chevrolet IS GM to most people.

As far as Chrysler is concerned, they're dead meat.

>
>I don't think GM is going to die, in fact a renewed GM through chapter 11
>will be competative and sustainable. But the GM CEO and executive need to
>be repalced. I saw the letter sent to suppliers from the GM CEO, what a
>joke. Proof positive this is organized extortion of the tax payer.

Replaced? As in taken behind the building and shot?

>
>But Ford? Not sure unless the Ford Family gives up control. My guess is
>not. Ford is in the best shape of the three and if they can just whack
>costs down some more and keep the production of quality up doing it they
>just might make it! But a lot of ifs, but Ford has a better idea, don't
>bilk your customers via the tax system. They are off to a good start.
>

Another case for losing a product line. Shut down Mercury. It's
become just a kind of upper end Ford. In fact, I'm willing to bet the
two pull customers from each other. With the high expenses of running
two companies, that's got to hurt both of their bottom lines.

One thing I see happening in the event of chapter 11. NASCAR dies.
The first thing a judge would say is "lose the racing."

--
- dillon I am not invalid

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams come true.
Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which
will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no
matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:54:35 -0600, Dillon Pyron cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

>
> Lose a couple of duplicate lines. Pontiac and Chevy are almost
> identical in both lines and prices. Take the trucks out of Chevy and
> put them in GMC. But they have to keep Chevy, in some sort or
> fashion. Chevrolet IS GM to most people.

Pontiac and Chevy are more dissimilar than similar. Pontiac may end up
going, but that would be a shame. The product line is far superior to the
Chevy lineup in terms of design, fit and finish, etc.


>>
>>I don't think GM is going to die, in fact a renewed GM through chapter 11
>>will be competative and sustainable. But the GM CEO and executive need to
>>be repalced. I saw the letter sent to suppliers from the GM CEO, what a
>>joke. Proof positive this is organized extortion of the tax payer.
>
> Replaced? As in taken behind the building and shot?

A perfectly worthwhile suggestion in my opinion.


>
> One thing I see happening in the event of chapter 11. NASCAR dies.
> The first thing a judge would say is "lose the racing."
>

I'm not so sure about that at all. Marketing is a recognized requirement,
and NASCAR fills that bill nicely for the motor companies. GM is already
showing that they are trimming financial support of some things NASCAR, but
I don't believe you'd see it declared that they must pull out of racing.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:f44nm4hmk4f98oa42bmaj5o6m0gof8iot1@4ax.com...
> Thus spake "Canuck57" <nospam@nospam.com> :
>
>>
>>"Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:1bekm45lqt4bi9e1tb9gf3po9t6herpr4f@4ax.com. ..
>>> If you don't read Scott Burns, you should. His column today has a
>>> very memorable line. He's talking about various things that he
>>> predicts are going to happen. He also says that most of the economic
>>> soothsayers are so far behind it's outrageous. For instance, the most
>>> recent issue of Business Week has on article on "The New Frugality".
>>> He let his subscription expire in mid 2008 as a frugality measure.
>>>
>>> Well, here's the quote:
>>>
>>> "Cerberus, which already owns Chrylser, will take over GM and Ford.
>>> This will happen beacus it's the only poetic thing to do.
>>>
>>> After all, if the gates of hell ae guarded by a three-headed dog named
>>> Cerberus, what better name could we have for the three-headed dog that
>>> guards the gates of Detroit?"
>>
>>I can see GM & Chysler merging. Hit chapter 11 in a packaged way, smash
>>them together and get some real managment and more realistic union
>>contracts. Downsize the overhead and lean up, with more intense and real
>>automation efforts.
>
> Lose a couple of duplicate lines. Pontiac and Chevy are almost
> identical in both lines and prices. Take the trucks out of Chevy and
> put them in GMC. But they have to keep Chevy, in some sort or
> fashion. Chevrolet IS GM to most people.

True. I have used Chevy Nova motor parts in a Pontiac Ventura just because
they were cheaper. Never understood why the inefficiency of two brands for
one vehicle existed. To me, Chev is GM is CMC is Buick is Pontiac is ...

> As far as Chrysler is concerned, they're dead meat.

Yep. Only questin is how will they be picked apart.

>>I don't think GM is going to die, in fact a renewed GM through chapter 11
>>will be competative and sustainable. But the GM CEO and executive need to
>>be repalced. I saw the letter sent to suppliers from the GM CEO, what a
>>joke. Proof positive this is organized extortion of the tax payer.
>
> Replaced? As in taken behind the building and shot?

I would agree. Just saw a letter the GM CEO sent to suppliers asking for
whining support for government bailout. Pathetic fool does not have a
freaking clue on how to run a business. Clueless.

>>But Ford? Not sure unless the Ford Family gives up control. My guess is
>>not. Ford is in the best shape of the three and if they can just whack
>>costs down some more and keep the production of quality up doing it they
>>just might make it! But a lot of ifs, but Ford has a better idea, don't
>>bilk your customers via the tax system. They are off to a good start.
>>
>
> Another case for losing a product line. Shut down Mercury. It's
> become just a kind of upper end Ford. In fact, I'm willing to bet the
> two pull customers from each other. With the high expenses of running
> two companies, that's got to hurt both of their bottom lines.

Yep. No reason really to have this duplicated overhead. Just waste.
Probably would be cheaper to put Mercury chrome on a Ford and forget the
overhead of Mercury. One thing I do like about Japanese is that something
silly like a tach is not an option, everyone gets one approach.

> One thing I see happening in the event of chapter 11. NASCAR dies.
> The first thing a judge would say is "lose the racing."

Hey, if you are losing money cut what isn't keeping you in business.

 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:43:27 -0700, Canuck57 cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:



>
> True. I have used Chevy Nova motor parts in a Pontiac Ventura just because
> they were cheaper. Never understood why the inefficiency of two brands for
> one vehicle existed. To me, Chev is GM is CMC is Buick is Pontiac is ...

When it comes to the truck lines, I would agree. There is very little
difference between a Chevy truck and a GMC. Within the car lines however,
there is significant difference. Models share a common platform but that
serves the economy reducing parts - that's why you can use Chevy parts on a
Pontiac. That's a good thing. The models are not simple re-badging of the
same vehicle as is more the case in the truck lines. Each of those
divisions have long appealed to different market segments - and did so
successfully for quite a long time. As that advantage began to fail,
divisions were cut - ala Oldsmobile (a mistake in many ways if one
considers the engineering that came out of the Olds division). Maybe it is
time to trim more, or better said - to continue trimming, but not because
of multiple brands that offer to differing market segments, but in the name
of building better cars that simply offer more in the base package.

I generally stayed away from Chevy cars because they didn't stack up well
against their Buick, Olds and Pontiac counterparts. Cheaper, clunkier,
less comfortable cars. Raise the bar for what Chevy's are and you could
easily eliminate a product line. Just quit offering a line of car with
shitty seats, poor noise insulation, etc. What you'll end up with is Chevy
cars being the line that is dropped and Pontiac or Buick taking on the
Chevy name.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:11c6iho4jzgdu$.9xo5qdbdx8uf$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:43:27 -0700, Canuck57 cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom...:
>>
>> True. I have used Chevy Nova motor parts in a Pontiac Ventura just
>> because
>> they were cheaper. Never understood why the inefficiency of two brands
>> for
>> one vehicle existed. To me, Chev is GM is CMC is Buick is Pontiac is ...
>
> When it comes to the truck lines, I would agree. There is very little
> difference between a Chevy truck and a GMC. Within the car lines however,
> there is significant difference. Models share a common platform but that
> serves the economy reducing parts - that's why you can use Chevy parts on
> a
> Pontiac. That's a good thing. The models are not simple re-badging of
> the
> same vehicle as is more the case in the truck lines. Each of those
> divisions have long appealed to different market segments - and did so
> successfully for quite a long time. As that advantage began to fail,
> divisions were cut - ala Oldsmobile (a mistake in many ways if one
> considers the engineering that came out of the Olds division). Maybe it
> is
> time to trim more, or better said - to continue trimming, but not because
> of multiple brands that offer to differing market segments, but in the
> name
> of building better cars that simply offer more in the base package.
>
> I generally stayed away from Chevy cars because they didn't stack up well
> against their Buick, Olds and Pontiac counterparts. Cheaper, clunkier,
> less comfortable cars. Raise the bar for what Chevy's are and you could
> easily eliminate a product line. Just quit offering a line of car with
> shitty seats, poor noise insulation, etc. What you'll end up with is
> Chevy
> cars being the line that is dropped and Pontiac or Buick taking on the
> Chevy name.

When it comes to creature features, I agree. But the motors, frame,
transmissions, steering, rad etc. is all the same. Usually it is stuff like
better seats, mirrors, the add on stuff. This branding though has a
backlash in that do I buy a cheqp Chev or a Buick? The overhead to
differentiate these brands must be amazing, the complexity... why not do it
like the other companies, 2 models, not many dealer options? And many of
these items are $10 at design/assembly items.

Most of us know, once you say options, you are saying $5,000 or $10,000
extra. It is why I don't even look at them any more. If the package I am
looking at does not have what I want in the price I see, I move on. And no,
there are some features I like that disqualify vehicles immediately.
Temperature control for example. Electronic dial a temp I can't believe
costs much if anything more than some klunky mechanical manual thing. I
also consider it a safety feature as I don't want to putz with levers when I
drive just to be comfortable and alert.

Sometimes I wonder if they option themselves to death. When looking at a
brand like Honda or Toyota it is much easier to price compare and move on.
While one might say GM is less expensive, I have yet to see one comparably
compared to the competition that wasn't more expensive. For example, Honda
a tach is in every one, GM it is an option. Ditto say a 3 speed auto versus
4 or 5 speed auto. The "cheapness" starts to be apparent when looking at it
this way.

 

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:12:17 -0700, Canuck57 cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:



>
> When it comes to creature features, I agree. But the motors, frame,
> transmissions, steering, rad etc. is all the same.

That's what the common platform is all about and that's where the economy
of the build comes from. Though... not all of those parts are really so
common. The same platform in a Pontiac will not necessarily offer the same
engine as its Chevy counterpart. Likewise steering. There are more
differences than you may realize. Then of course, there's the ECM, BCM,
etc. differences between brands. These are differences that make... well,
a lot of difference.

> Usually it is stuff like
> better seats, mirrors, the add on stuff.

Agree to some extent. But those parts like ECM and BCM are not simple add
ons. They make the difference in performance as well. Then of course,
there is sound deadening, etc. And yes - seats. A big one in my opinion.
All of this adds up to why I feel Chevy is the junk brand of GM, and they
could not just drop every other brand and build Chevys.


> This branding though has a
> backlash in that do I buy a cheqp Chev or a Buick? The overhead to
> differentiate these brands must be amazing, the complexity... why not do it
> like the other companies, 2 models, not many dealer options? And many of
> these items are $10 at design/assembly items.

I agree that the options packages are rediculous. I wouldn't reduce things
as much as you suggest, but I'd be willing to meet you in the middle if I
were ever offered the job of CEO.

>
> Most of us know, once you say options, you are saying $5,000 or $10,000
> extra.

No... more like $500. Still too much for what you get in those packages.


>
> Sometimes I wonder if they option themselves to death. When looking at a
> brand like Honda or Toyota it is much easier to price compare and move on.
> While one might say GM is less expensive, I have yet to see one comparably
> compared to the competition that wasn't more expensive. For example, Honda
> a tach is in every one, GM it is an option. Ditto say a 3 speed auto versus
> 4 or 5 speed auto. The "cheapness" starts to be apparent when looking at it
> this way.

I again, won't agree with the "cheapness" part of this, but I will agree
with the unnecessarily complex options packages.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Thus spake Mike Marlow <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> :

>On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:54:35 -0600, Dillon Pyron cast forth these pearls of
>wisdom...:
>
>>
>> Lose a couple of duplicate lines. Pontiac and Chevy are almost
>> identical in both lines and prices. Take the trucks out of Chevy and
>> put them in GMC. But they have to keep Chevy, in some sort or
>> fashion. Chevrolet IS GM to most people.
>
>Pontiac and Chevy are more dissimilar than similar. Pontiac may end up
>going, but that would be a shame. The product line is far superior to the
>Chevy lineup in terms of design, fit and finish, etc.

Most of my friends think the Poncho F bodies are (were) far superior
to the Chevy.

>
>
>>>
>>>I don't think GM is going to die, in fact a renewed GM through chapter 11
>>>will be competative and sustainable. But the GM CEO and executive need to
>>>be repalced. I saw the letter sent to suppliers from the GM CEO, what a
>>>joke. Proof positive this is organized extortion of the tax payer.
>>
>> Replaced? As in taken behind the building and shot?
>
>A perfectly worthwhile suggestion in my opinion.
>
>
>>
>> One thing I see happening in the event of chapter 11. NASCAR dies.
>> The first thing a judge would say is "lose the racing."
>>
>
>I'm not so sure about that at all. Marketing is a recognized requirement,
>and NASCAR fills that bill nicely for the motor companies. GM is already
>showing that they are trimming financial support of some things NASCAR, but
>I don't believe you'd see it declared that they must pull out of racing.

Well, we've had yet another team merge with someone, cutting at least
one more car out of the equation. It's beginning to look like the
2007 Indy Recking League.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams come true.
Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which
will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no
matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

 

"Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:f44nm4hmk4f98oa42bmaj5o6m0gof8iot1@4ax.com...
> Thus spake "Canuck57" <nospam@nospam.com> :
>
>>
>>"Dillon Pyron" <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:1bekm45lqt4bi9e1tb9gf3po9t6herpr4f@4ax.com. ..
>>> If you don't read Scott Burns, you should. His column today has a
>>> very memorable line. He's talking about various things that he
>>> predicts are going to happen. He also says that most of the economic
>>> soothsayers are so far behind it's outrageous. For instance, the most
>>> recent issue of Business Week has on article on "The New Frugality".
>>> He let his subscription expire in mid 2008 as a frugality measure.
>>>
>>> Well, here's the quote:
>>>
>>> "Cerberus, which already owns Chrylser, will take over GM and Ford.
>>> This will happen beacus it's the only poetic thing to do.
>>>
>>> After all, if the gates of hell ae guarded by a three-headed dog named
>>> Cerberus, what better name could we have for the three-headed dog that
>>> guards the gates of Detroit?"
>>
>>I can see GM & Chysler merging. Hit chapter 11 in a packaged way, smash
>>them together and get some real managment and more realistic union
>>contracts. Downsize the overhead and lean up, with more intense and real
>>automation efforts.
>
> Lose a couple of duplicate lines. Pontiac and Chevy are almost
> identical in both lines and prices. Take the trucks out of Chevy and
> put them in GMC. But they have to keep Chevy, in some sort or
> fashion. Chevrolet IS GM to most people.
>
> As far as Chrysler is concerned, they're dead meat.
>
>>
>>I don't think GM is going to die, in fact a renewed GM through chapter 11
>>will be competative and sustainable. But the GM CEO and executive need to
>>be repalced. I saw the letter sent to suppliers from the GM CEO, what a
>>joke. Proof positive this is organized extortion of the tax payer.
>
> Replaced? As in taken behind the building and shot?
>
>>
>>But Ford? Not sure unless the Ford Family gives up control. My guess is
>>not. Ford is in the best shape of the three and if they can just whack
>>costs down some more and keep the production of quality up doing it they
>>just might make it! But a lot of ifs, but Ford has a better idea, don't
>>bilk your customers via the tax system. They are off to a good start.
>>
>
> Another case for losing a product line. Shut down Mercury. It's
> become just a kind of upper end Ford. In fact, I'm willing to bet the
> two pull customers from each other. With the high expenses of running
> two companies, that's got to hurt both of their bottom lines.

More uninformed speculation. Mercury pulls more female customers, and it
costs very little to gussy up a Ford and sell it for a couple of grand more.
This boosts the plant volumes and keeps traffic flowing into the L-M
dealers.

There's a very good case for keeping Mercury, but the stampede of so-called
"analysts" has them convinced they need to get rid of it. That's BS. GM
killed off Oldsmobile, paid barge loads of money to buy off the dealer body,
and the Olds customers didn't migrate to other GM brands - they just left
forever.

Derek