2005 Chrysler Sebring Gtc Convertible Runs Great Super Quiet Save Money on 2040-cars

Auto blog

5 reasons why GM is cutting jobs, closing plants in a healthy economy

DETROIT — Even though unemployment is low, the economy is growing and U.S. auto sales are near historic highs, General Motors is cutting thousands of jobs in a major restructuring aimed at generating cash to spend on innovation. It's the new reality for automakers that are faced with the present cost of designing gas-powered cars and trucks that appeal to buyers now while at the same time preparing for a future world of electric and autonomous vehicles. GM announced Monday that it will cut as many as 14,000 workers in North America and put five plants up for possible closure as it abandons many of its car models and restructures to focus more on autonomous and electric vehicles. The reductions could amount to as much as 8 percent of GM's global workforce of 180,000 employees. The cuts mark GM's first major downsizing since shedding thousands of jobs in the Great Recession. The company also said it will stop operating two additional factories outside North America by the end of next year. The move to make GM get leaner before the next downturn likely will be followed by Ford Motor Co., which also has struggled to keep one foot in the present and another in an ambiguous future of new mobility. Ford has been slower to react, but says it will lay off an unspecified number of white-collar workers as it exits much of the car market in favor of trucks and SUVs, some of them powered by batteries. Here's a rundown of the reasons behind the cuts: Coding, not combustion CEO Mary Barra said as cars and trucks become more complex, GM will need more computer coders but fewer engineers who work on internal combustion engines. "The vehicle has become much more software-oriented" with millions of lines of code, she said. "We still need many technical resources in the company." Shedding sedans The restructuring also reflects changing North American auto markets as manufacturers continue to shift away from cars toward SUVs and trucks. In October, almost 65 percent of new vehicles sold in the U.S. were trucks or SUVs. That figure was about 50 percent cars just five years ago. GM is shedding cars largely because it doesn't make money on them, Citi analyst Itay Michaeli wrote in a note to investors. "We estimate sedans operate at a significant loss, hence the need for classic restructuring," he wrote. The reduction includes about 8,000 white-collar employees, or 15 percent of GM's North American white-collar workforce. Some will take buyouts while others will be laid off.

FCA-Renault merger faces tall odds delivering on cost-cutting promises

FRANKFURT/DETROIT — Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Renault promise huge savings from a mega-merger, but such combinations face tall odds because of the industry's long product cycles and problems translating deal blueprints into real world success, industry veterans told Reuters. BMW's 1994 purchase of Rover, and Daimler's 1998 merger with Chrysler both made sense on paper. The companies promised to hike profits by combining vehicle platforms and engine families. Both combinations proved unworkable in reality, and were unwound. Renault and Nissan, which have been in an alliance since 1999 designed to share vehicle components, have only managed to use common vehicle platforms in 35% of Nissan's products despite an original target of 70%, according to Morgan Stanley. FCA and Renault have raised the stakes for themselves by ruling out plant closures. That increases the pressure to achieve more than $5 billion in promised annual savings from pooling procurement and research investments. The two companies have yet to fill in many of the blanks in the merger plan put forward by Fiat Chrysler. Renault's board is expected to act soon to accept the proposal, but that would lead only to a memorandum of understanding to pursue detailed operational and financial plans. A final deal and the legal combination of the two companies could take months to complete if all goes well. Pressure to cut automotive pollution is driving the latest round of consolidation. Automakers are looking at multibillion-dollar bills to develop electric and hybrid cars and cleaner internal combustion engines. Fiat Chrysler and Renault are betting they can design common electric vehicle systems, then sell more of them through their respective brands and dealer networks, cutting the cost per car. Developing all-new electric vehicles can bring more opportunities to share costs from the outset, industry experts said. "With the emergence of connected, autonomous, electric and shared vehicles, carmakers face immediate investments, so new opportunities for sharing costs have emerged," said Elmar Kades, managing director at Alix Partners. However, most electric vehicles lose money. This is a challenge for city car brands in Europe in particular. Both Renault and Fiat rely heavily on this segment for sales.

Auto bailout cost the US goverment $9.26B

Depending on your outlook, the US Treasury's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler (now FCA) and their financing divisions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program was either a complete boondoggle or a savvy move to secure the future of some major employers. Regardless of where you fall, the auto industry bailout has officially ended, and the numbers have been tallied. Of the $79.69 billion that the Feds invested to keep the automakers afloat, it recouped $70.43 billion – a net loss of $9.26 billion. The final nail in the coffin for the auto bailout came in December 2014 when the Feds sold its shares in Ally Financial, formerly GMAC. The deal turned out pretty good for the government too because the investment turned a 2.4 billion profit. The actual automakers have long been out of the Treasury's hands, though. The current FCA paid back its loans six years early in 2011, the Treasury sold of the last shares of GM in late 2013. According to The Detroit News, the government's books actually show an official loss on the auto bailouts of $16.56 billion. The difference is because the larger figure does not include the interest or dividends paid by the borrowers on the amount lent. While it's easy to see fault in any red ink on the Feds' massive investment, the number is less than some earlier estimates. At one time, deficits around $44 billion were thought possible, and another put things at a $20.3 billion loss. Outside of just the government losing money, the bailouts might have helped the overall economy. A study from the Center for Automotive Research last year estimated that the program saved 2.6 million jobs and about $284.4 billion in personal wealth. It also indicated that the Feds' reduction in income tax revenue alone from Chrysler and GM going under could have been around $100 billion for just 2009 and 2010, significantly more than any loss in the bailout.