fiat

My Second car was a FIAT (fix it again tony). A 1973 128SL FWD which I bought in 1975 with 13,000 miles on it. The second month I owned it, a wrist pin keeper failed and the loose pin did serious damage to the cylinder wall necessitating a complete engine tear down to sleeve the block. Fortunately I had purchased a 12 month warranty when I bought it. Other problems in the next 3 years... Oil pressure sending unit failed which shut down the fuel pump leaving be stranded far from home. Hood hinge broke. Clutch cable broke. Front struts developed a clink and I was advised they needed to be replaced. Couldn't afford it so they stayed clinking. Rust around the windshield frame. CV boots (every FWD car I have owned has had CV boot problems)

Even if FIAT has improved their POS cars since then, the damage is done. I am done with FIAT and FWD.

Why I bought a Mustang GT. RWD, a 5 speed and a V8.

note: There must be a way to drive the front wheels with out CV joints and their flimsy boots. I owned a Jeep 4X4 and it was able to engage the front end and its system did not use boots and it did not break. Ever.

Yes, it's called a solid front axle. It does not contribute to a well handling car.

rd

You didn't mention what happened if you were going around a corner on a dirt road and let off the gas:)

Al

You reminded me of an early lesson in front wheel drive driving. Lets set the stage here. At 17 in 1974, I acquired for the price of $500.00 a 1968 Chevell. During the two years I drove it, I had learned the art of down shifting and adding power to help with the corners. I bet you know where this is going ;)

The first few days I owned my first FWD car, I was jamming along on my old familiar road a bit on the fast side right up to my curve. Dropped down a gear before the curve and as I entered it, added power. Do you believe in guardian angles? The front end washed out and I let off on the gas. By the time I had any kind of traction me and the car had crossed into the opposite lane kissing the dirt shoulder and looking into the front of an on coming car which if had been 5 seconds earlier or me 5 seconds later, the out come would have been much different than just getting scared half to death.

While this didn't happen to me, I help pull out a FWD car from the steep edge of the road one afternoon. Here is how that went down. It had snowed and the road up to the fun was steep and twisting. Chains were required and the FWD cars had them on the front. Well, one FWD driver on his way down managed to swap ends and in so doing swapped his rear end right off the embankment. The front wheels were on the lip but the rest of the car was down the hill. FWD helps going up but seems to be a liability going down.

My drive line experience went like this. RWD, FWD, RWD, AWD, FWD, and now back to RWD. When it was time to move on from my FWD Probe GT, I had decided that I was done with FWD and looked long and hard at what is available in RWD. What did I find? Mustang GT, Dodge Charger, GTO, BMW

337i, Mercedes (naw), Infinity G37 very cool but spendy. All but the Mustang was pushing 40K. Bang for the buck it was the Mustang GT. Yes, its possiable to spend 60K on a trick Cobra (GT500). But I am satisfied with the GT.

Fiat doesn't have the Mopar pink slip yet. To get it, this whole rancid deal has got to get past a bankruptcy magistrate judge, a District Court judge, a Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. Funny how these institutions tend to follow the law as it is written in the law books, and not according to the politically driven whims of the banana republic dictator currently occupying the White House.

180 Out

Fiat hasn't ruined performance brands it owns/controls such as Ferrari so I don't see what a problem Fiat ownership would be.

The government's courts don't follow the law either, they care not for it. To many judges they are the law. Even without that, in court cases the judges demand that the juries apply the law as the judges say to apply it. The jury has complete power to decide the law as well. That's the point of the jury system, a check on the government from making bad laws against the will of the people. The juries (of the people) simply refuse to convict people or apply bad laws.

You're right. A European luxury car maker takes over Chrysler: what could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, I didn't say one way or the other whether Fiat ownership could be a problem. It's difficult -- no, impossible -- to imagine Chrysler's problems getting worse. Actually it's Fiat that has a problem, if this deal does go through. I don't see how they think they can make any money out of this deal. Certainly free market sales of motor vehicles is not going to do it. That leaves the U.S. government as the only possible source of a return on Fiat's "investment."

That's a bizarre theory of jurisprudence. How do these judges decide cases, with coin tosses? If so, how can it be that the coin toss turns out the same as this case works its way through as many as three levels of appeal?

I think, Brett, that the correct answer is that you are an ignorant windbag. But I would never say so in public.

Even without that, in court cases

Courts of appeal -- and in bankruptcy cases the District Court sits as a court of appeal -- never use juries.

The bankruptcy courts use juries only in limited circumstances, e.g., in a claim arising under state contract law which calls for jury trial of disputed issues of fact.

Unless you have in mind a particular legal issue which is going to be submitted to a jury in this Chrysler Chapter 11 proceeding, I don't understand why you brought up juries -- other than the reason that you are an ignorant windbag. But "the jury is out" on that one -- hee hee -- so we'll let it go.

180 Out

My guess, in 18 months there will be no Chrysler. Hope I'm wrong....

Al

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in news:71ed46fd-c5d0-4870-a2a3- snipped-for-privacy@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com:

Chrysler is Fiat's ticket into the U.S. market. Takes them into a whole 'nother league. A car like the 500 would put Chrysler ahead of both Ford and GM instantly. After the dust settles from the economy, they'd be positioned decently.

The judges are the law now. Maybe you haven't noticed? They decide on their OPINIONS, what benefits them, their employer, etc. The law is way down the list if it's on it at all for many a judge. Just look at many of the laws that obviously violate our natural rights (many of which are outlined in the Bill of Rights) that the courts approve of.

Ahh.. another sleepy american who thinks government's courts are fair and unbiased. LOL.

You were acting as if government court system was fair and unbiased. It's nothing of the sort. I was offering just the most obvious example of it.

I think Al's 18 month prediction is more likely than Joe's dinky car scenario. I think it's more likely than not (51% vs. 49%) that Chrysler's plants -- all of which shut down last Friday (May 1) for the duration of the Chapter 11 proceeding -- will never reopen.

As far as a Fiat 500 type car being a market hit sufficient to pull Chrysler ahead of Ford and GM, that's impossible. The 500 is smaller than a Mini Cooper. Although the 500's unusually narrow -- adopted to navigate the streets of its home country -- need not be carried over to a U.S. model, we already have some VERY good choices in this micro segment, in the Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris. Neither of these registered in the Top 20 for April 2009. Check the Top 20 chart on this Wall Street Journal page:

The problem with these dinky cars is that there is no profit in them. Federal CAFE regulations force domestic automakers to sell vehicles in this class at a loss, to try to attract enough buyers to these high mpg vehicles to balance out their larger, lower mpg models. I would be surprised if even Honda or Toyota are making any money with the Fit or Yaris.

I don't care how many times Pres. Oprompter brays it to his adoring press corp, a vehicle that you lose money on each one you sell is not the road to "sustainability."

Also keep in mind that GM and Chrysler start out from way behind Toyota and Honda, with a UAW-induced disadvantage averaging $1,500 in wages and benefits per vehicle they have to collect before making a profit. With the UAW pension plan owning 55% of a post-bankruptcy Mopar, you think that $1,500/vehicle profit gap is going to close? I definitely do not.

I don't know how relevant these figures are to this discussion, but check the bottom chart on the WSJ page, showing market share. Here's a summary of the bottom line:

52.7%--Total Car 18.6%--Domestic Car 34.1%--Import Car 47.3%--Total Truck 28.9%--Domestic Truck 18.4%--Import Truck

Domestic Car -- 18.6%!!! Will the last person to leave Detroit please turn out the lights!

180 Out

From the WSJ of Friday, May 01, 2009 - looking at only those mfgs that sold >25,000 cars in Jan-Apr 2009, the "winners" (meaning those that lost the least year-over-year) are the two Korean manufacturers: those that sold cars based primarily on price.

I can't wait ;-) ;-) for WalMart to start selling Chery cars.

2009 2008 % lost ----------- ----------- ------ Hyundai Motor America "129,806" "134,618" -3.6 Kia Motors America Inc. "94,499" "98,280" -3.8 Volkswagen of America Inc. "106,652 "137,105" -22.2 Mercedes-Benz "54,827" "77,960" -29.7 BMW of North America Inc. "58,436" "85,100" -31.3 American Honda Motor Co Inc. "332,014" "487,822" -31.9 Nissan North America Inc. "221,957" "345,600" -35.8 Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. "486,212" "789,448" -38.4 Ford Motor Company "440,045" "733,296" -40.0 General Motors Corp. "578,028" "1,049,966" -44.9 Chrysler LLC "323,890" "601,622" -46.2

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2008 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0% lost

=A0----------- =A0 =A0------

960" =A0 =A0 -29.7 2" =A0 =A0 -46.2

Noteworthy in this table, the 2009 year-to-date figures ranked in order:

578,028--General Motors Corp. (-44.9) 486,212--Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. (-38.4) 440,045--Ford Motor Company (-40.0) 332,014--American Honda Motor Co Inc. (-31.9) 323,890--Chrysler LLC (-46.2) 221,957--Nissan North America Inc. (-35.8)

Chrysler in fifth place, with Nissan gaining, BEFORE the Chapter 11 filing.

I see Ford coming out on top after all this shakes out. After GM gets the Obama/UAW/banana republic treatment, Ford will be the last man standing making full size American pickups.

Sure Tundra and the Titan will still be around, too, but they don't register in the Top 20 and are therefore not in the same game as the F series. Go back to that WSJ table of the Top 20. Number 20 -- the Toyota Tacoma pickup -- sold 9,027 units in April. That means the Tundra and the Titan (and the Fit and the Yaris too, to return to the minicar discussion) are somewhere below 9,000 units, while the F sold

29,000, the Silverado 26,500, and the Ram 18,000.

In addition to the F, Ford has three other models in the Top 20: Fusion (18,000), Escape (13,500), and Focus (12,000).

I heard recently that Ford stock tripled in about a month. There's a good reason for that.

180 Out

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2008 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0% lost

=A0----------- =A0 =A0------

7,960" =A0 =A0 -29.7 622" =A0 =A0 -46.2

Talking to myself, specifically about GM:

Copied and pasted below, in its entirety, is a Reuters story posted on its website today (May 7). Here are some bullet points:

• As El Hefe Obama's June 1 deadline for a "new plan" rapidly approaches, GM announces today that it lost another billion dollars in 1Q '09, adding to the billion it has lost since 2005.

• GM's "new plan" for the billion it owes to its creditors is to trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. Adding the necessary shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at .59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to * GM's "new plan" for the $40 billion it owes to its creditors is to trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. Adding the necessary shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at $1.59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to $0.02. That's not a whole lot more than $0.00. (Picture this: you're walking along and you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the sidewalk. Which one would you stoop to pick up? ("Neither" is an acceptable answer.))
  .02. That's not a whole lot more than * GM's "new plan" for the $40 billion it owes to its creditors is to trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. Adding the necessary shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at $1.59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to $0.02. That's not a whole lot more than $0.00. (Picture this: you're walking along and you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the sidewalk. Which one would you stoop to pick up? ("Neither" is an acceptable answer.))
  .00. (Picture this: you're walking along and you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the sidewalk. Which one would you stoop to pick up? ("Neither" is an acceptable answer.))

• Shares worth * Shares worth $0.02 apiece are OK, because GM's currently operative "old plan" is for the U.S. government to own a majority stake anyway. We've already "loaned GM $15.4 billion, a total which will have increased to $18 billion by the time El Hefe's June 1 deadline rolls around. Missing from today's story is the fact that GM employs only.02 apiece are OK, because GM's currently operative "old plan" is for the U.S. government to own a majority stake anyway. We've already "loaned GM .4 billion, a total which will have increased to billion by the time El Hefe's June 1 deadline rolls around. Missing from today's story is the fact that GM employs only

73,454 assembly line workers (according to September 2007 figures on the UAW's own web site -- )Do the math: that's $245,000 per job ALREADY -- before the governmenttakes on a majority stake.)

• Here's the money quote: "The automaker said on Thursday that it had not yet reached the deal it needs with the UAW." Can you blame the union? They know the fix is in; just look at Chrysler, where the UAW is getting 55% ownership, 0,000,000 in cash from Daimler, El Hefe's shock troops strong arming the hold out creditors, and an open- ended commitment from El Hefe to continue pumping in as much cash as it takes to keep that rotting leaking garbage scow afloat.

So here's the Reuters story

GM posted a first-quarter net loss of $6 billion, compared with a loss of $3.3 billion a year earlier. The company has lost $88 billion since its turnaround efforts began in 2005 under former Chief Executive Rick Wagoner.

The losses are expected to mount in the current quarter when GM shuts down U.S. manufacturing plants for up to nine weeks in an effort to run down inventory and lessen its exposure to bankrupt former subsidiary Delphi Corp.

GM is negotiating with Delphi's bankruptcy lenders and the U.S. government to try to find a way to allow the parts supplier to emerge from bankruptcy after more than three-and-a-half years.

"We would like to have a resolution of Delphi as soon as possible," Young told analysts and reporters.

GM is facing a government-imposed June 1 deadline to reach agreements to overhaul its operations and cut more than $40 billion in debt. It has taken $15.4 billion in emergency loans from the U.S. Treasury and expects that to rise to $18 billion by the end of the month.

The first quarter was marked by GM's failure to win backing for a turnaround plan that the U.S. autos task force concluded was too slow- moving to succeed. The Obama administration ousted Wagoner as GM chief executive at the end of the quarter.

Creditors have been looking beyond GM's results, focusing instead on whether it succeeds in winning debt concessions from its bondholders and the United Auto Workers union.

The automaker said on Thursday that it had not yet reached the deal it needs with the UAW.

It also said the Treasury had not yet agreed to convert half of the loans it has extended to GM into stock in a restructured company, as the automaker has proposed.

Young said GM was back in talks with union representatives and ready to negotiate around the clock to reach a settlement.

The UAW faces pressure to accept GM stock in exchange for about $10 billion the union is owed for a trust fund for retiree healthcare. That would give the union a 39 percent stake in the restructured company.

Under the restructuring plan GM detailed last month, the government would own a majority stake, effectively nationalizing the 100-year-old Detroit-based automaker.

GM shares were down 7 cents or 4.2 percent at $1.59 around midday on the New York Stock Exchange. The company's pending plan to issue new shares to pay off creditors would dilute the value of the share to less than 2 cents.

180 Out

I read the other day that GM is floating out the idea of a reverse stock split. They would issue ONE SHARE for every ten shares held. They need to do something because they are creating stock about as fast as Obama is creating dollars. Before long they will both be worthless.

• GM's "new plan" for the billion it owes to its creditors is to trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. Adding the necessary shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at .59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to * GM's "new plan" for the $40 billion it owes to its creditors is to trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. Adding the necessary shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at $1.59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to $0.02. That's not a whole lot more than $0.00. (Picture this: you're walking along and you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the sidewalk. Which one would you stoop to pick up? ("Neither" is an acceptable answer.)).02. That's not a whole lot more than * GM's "new plan" for the $40 billion it owes to its creditors is to trade them shares of stock for their I.O.U.'s. Adding the necessary shares to the ones already in circulation -- currently trading at $1.59 -- would dilute the value of all shares to $0.02. That's not a whole lot more than $0.00. (Picture this: you're walking along and you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the sidewalk. Which one would you stoop to pick up? ("Neither" is an acceptable answer.)).00. (Picture this: you're walking along and you see a penny and a share of GM stock lying side-by-side on the sidewalk. Which one would you stoop to pick up? ("Neither" is an acceptable answer.))

What year is the penny? :)

Let's say it's from the last year they were made of copper, which would make two of them worth more than a post-bailout share of GM shock.

More fun and games came out today, in a 10-page report from GM to members of Congress regarding GM's plans for overseas production. I had thought, after I posted my calculation that an $18,000,000,000 bailout to save 73,454 jobs GM works out to $245,000 per job, that this number was understated for the reason that the 73,454 jobs doesn't take into account the closing of Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and GMC. (It doesn't take into account workforce shrinkage since September

2007, either, which is when the 73,454 number was operative.)

Today GM admits to another plan to shrink its U.S. assembly line workforce: that its current rescue plan includes doubling the proportion of cars for the domestic market that it builds offshore.

The correct government response to this plan is, that if that is what it takes to keep the doors open, then that's what it takes. El Hefe's response will be, of course, another round of threatened facial rearrangements and skeletal fractures, and an additional influx of misappropriated TARP money sufficient to make up for the lost savings from shipping the jobs overseas.

Here are some quotes from the Washington Post:

"Most of that growth [from 2010 to 2014] -- about two-thirds of it -- will occur in the United States. But about one-third of that growth will come from other countries, mostly Mexico and South Korea."

"Labor costs in those countries are far lower. While paying a U.S. autoworker with benefits costs about $54 an hour, a South Korean worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10 an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour, industry sources said."

"According to the figures shared with lawmakers, the percentage of GM's U.S. sales of cars built in the United States dips from 67 percent in 2009 to 61 percent in 2012."

Source:

180 Out

.

On the same day as Venezualan strongman Hugo Chavez instituted a new program to confiscate the oil wells and drilling equipment of foreign oil contractors, rather than pay them the hundreds of millions they're owed for their capital and services, our own El Hefe has shredded the rule of law and has cleared the way for union ownership of what's left of Chrysler.

At the beginning of the week, a coalition of secured creditors who held $1 billion of Chrysler's $6.9 billion total secured debt was rejecting the 29 cents on the dollar with which El Hefe intends to waterboard them. The group rightly asserted the priority of their claims, as secured creditors, over the unsecured claims of the UAW pension plan. El Hefe disagreed, called them "speculators" with whom he "does not stand," and threatened, through his Car Czar, to sic the national news media on the holdout creditors if they didn't go along with El Hefe's plan to give the UAW 50 cents on the dollar, while they'll take 29 cents and like it.

In the face of El Hefe's threats, one member of this group -- which called itself the Non-TARP Lenders, to distinguish its members from the rest of the secured creditors, whose cooperation El Hefe has bought with billions in TARP money -- caved in immediately. Further defections followed. According to today's New York Times, by Wednesday the holdings represented by the Non-TARP group had shrunk from $1 billion to $295 million. Yesterday, the two most high dollar remaining holdouts peeled off, and those left decided simply to disband as a united front. According to the group's attorney, his clients came to this decision in recognition of the fact that "they just don't have the critical mass to withstand the enormous pressure and machinery of the U.S. government."

I hope the small group of remaining Non-TARP Lenders continues to hold out for the rule of law, if only to prove that it still exists in this Year Zero H.C. (Hopey Changey) we now live in. But they probably will crumble too, when El Hefe's men come around to measure them for cement footwear.

In other news, I see that the Environmental Protection Agency has moved formally to keep in effect the Bush Administration's finding, that the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species is not a sufficient ground for comprehensive greenhouse gas regulation. Of course the NYT buries this story on page 16. At least the news that El Hefe intends to release Guantanamo detainees into U.S. civilian society -- and with job training and welfare checks to boot -- is slowly working its way to mainstream media's Page One.

In the same vein as the polar bear story, the Department of Energy's budget for 2010, rolled out on Thursday, has quietly ended federal funding of research on the use of hydrogen fuel cells in motor vehicles. Again, the NYT buries the story. If it had been this time last year, I guarantee we would have seen front page headlines, "Bush DOE Cancels Last Best Hope to Save Mankind."

But that's just my nostalgia for 2008 A.D. talking: a waste of energy for we the living here in the year Zero H.C.

180 Out

I had an AMC Eagle that was like that. I sure do love my Mustang GT.