What GM, Chrysler Bailouts Mean to Consumers

ChyrslerGM

Later this morning, President Barack Obama will speak about the government’s role in restructuring GM and Chrysler. At midnight last night, the administration released a number of statements about the future of both companies. Here is what we’ve been able to decipher in those statements, and what it means for car buyers and owners.

GM
The company has 60 more days to revamp its restructuring plan. The phrase “farther and faster” being bandied about could mean even more brands will be cut. That would be on top of previously announced moves attempting to shed Saturn, Hummer and Saab. That leaves Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, Buick and Pontiac. The only safe brands, theoretically, would be Chevrolet and Cadillac. But considering GMC, Buick and Pontiac have consolidated their dealers, one of the three would likely need to remain in business, and only GMC has proved it can make money.  

During the next 60 days, the U.S. government will fully back warranties on every GM make and model, including Saab, Hummer and Saturn models. This timeline would begin March 31, meaning it would last until the end of May.

Buyers do not need to take any additional steps to qualify for the federally backed warranty other than purchasing a vehicle.

The warranty program does take into account the possibility of bankruptcy in the future. If either company files for bankruptcy, it will assign a third-party to handle necessary repairs and servicing for all vehicles purchased during this new restructuring period.

There’s no word on whether the government will back warranties on vehicles bought before today, but we assume they would not. This move is to give assurance to buyers over the next two months so sales don’t drop at a faster rate than they already have.

In the government’s release, it does state that after this more accelerated restructuring plan, GM would be a viable company in the future.

In the government’s own words: “In short, while the Company has made meaningful progress in its turnaround plan over the last few years, the progress has been far too slow, allowing the Company to continue to lag the best-in-class competitors. As a result, the President’s Designee has found that General Motors’ plan is not viable as it is currently structured. However, because of GM's scale, franchise and progress to date, we believe that there could be a viable business within GM if the Company and its stakeholders engage in a substantially more aggressive restructuring plan.”

Chrysler
Unlike the statement regarding GM, the government says it will only loan Chrysler additional funds if it manages a successful partnership with Italian automaker Fiat. If that strategic alliance is completed with terms deemed acceptable by the U.S. government, it will grant the new entity another $6 billion in loans.

In its statement, the administration said it does not believe Chrysler could be a viable company on its own in the future.

The government will fully back warranties of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products for the next 30 days, meaning until the end of April.

In the government’s own words: “While the Company has made meaningful changes to its cost structure in the last few years, the combination of a fundamentally disadvantaged operating structure and a limited set of desirable products make standalone viability for the business highly challenging. As a result, the President’s Designee has found that Chrysler’s plan is not viable as currently structured. However, a partnership with another automotive company, such as Fiat or another prospective partner, which addresses many of these issues could lead to a path to viability for Chrysler.

Comments 

Ken L.

I think the administration did not want it to appear as if it’ll continue propping up failed business models. Chrysler will probably be gone if the merger with Fiat falls through. As for GM, they’ll definitely be a lot smaller in the future. As for brands within GM, unless it’s backed by GM, it’s consumer beware. Then again, it was consumer beware that further escalated this predicament.

H

The tentacles of socialism grow stronger and stronger. Is this the "change" that everyone wanted because it sure is what we're getting.

C

I sure hope somehow Jeep survives....If Chrysler goes under Ford should take over Jeep!

Paul

Maybe the heirs to Henry J Kaiser will want Jeep back (NOT!).Or Renault (who owned AMC) NOT! Or Willys.(oh yea,they went out when Kaiser bought them).

and1

Ford should stay for away from Jeep, and H go read somes books or something.

Skinner

I liked Jeeps - had an 81, 83, and 97 - until the "G-Wagon" version that came out a couple of years ago. They just look all wrong, have a minivan engine, the 4 door is WAY too long, and they have been having poor reliability. Bring back the vererable TJ, better yet the CJ! (We all forget the YJ ever happened, kinda like the Mustang II)

cody

i don't understand how gmc is still being considered. granted, i haven't done the research to see how they have proven they 'make money', but they're all rebadged chevy suvs/trucks. gmc could die tomorrow and chevy would just sell more trucks/suvs. would anyone really notice? at least pontiacs and buicks actually LOOK like they could be different vehicles. there is no visual difference between gmc/chevy beyond the grill, and there certainly is not technological difference.

Johnny

Honestly neither of these comapnies deserve any money when the problem has been going for the past decade. Yet not enough was done and now they're begging for a second chance. I find it hard to see GM gone so most likely it would file for bankruptcy if it does not get the money it needs. As for Chrysler, they're pretty much screwed. So the Fiat deal better work...and it most likely will. Poor Jim Press probably regrets quitting Toyota even though they're not doing all that great either.

Ross

The good news is that the Obama administration has enough sense to see that the plans the two companies presented wouldn't cut it. And it makes sense that GM could be viable by shedding debt and cutting labor costs. But has anyone ever seen a car company be viable by re-badging a line of cars designed for another market? The auto task force knocked Chrysler products for being unreliable, but the last Fiat in the US was like a sporty Yugo. Do they really think that Chrysler, a company whose customers like Hemi's, can suddenly start selling 1.5L mini cars? Chrysler is screwed.

Post a Comment 

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • If you don't want people to see your email address, simply type in the URL of your favorite website or leave the field empty.
  • Do not mention specific car dealers by name. Feel free to mention your city, state and brand.
  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers. This blog is not a fan or enthusiast forum, it is meant to help people during the car-buying process and during the time between purchases, so shoppers can keep a pulse on the market.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
view posting rules

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Search Results

KickingTires Search Results for

Search Kicking Tires

KickingTires iPhone App
Ask.cars.com