![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
GM/Ford merger brought up in boardroom, immediately shot down
by Damon Lavrinc on Jun 25th 2008 at 1:31PM 
Of all the preposterous ideas floated around this, the new automotive landscape, none seem as ridiculous as Ford and General Motors merging together to create a singular domestic monolith. But according to a BusinessWeek source, the idea was recently floated by execs during a meeting of the General's generals... and then shot down moments later.
While we wouldn't describe this as a close call, the fact that it was even mentioned speaks volumes about the dire straits Detroit's Big 3 (or 2.8, if you prefer) are in. Between plummeting sales, increased material costs, high fuel prices and union woes, both automakers are facing seemingly insurmountable challenges. But creating a $350 billion bloated corporate entity with excess production capacity, weak brands and more cannibalizing product overlap than has ever been seen, there's no doubt that it would be suicide for all involved. Not to mention the fact that the amount of resources necessary to pull of such a Herculean task would take precious time and money away from righting both automakers and their ailing product portfolios. Thankfully, that's why the idea was dropped within minutes of its introduction.
[Source: BusinessWeek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Vintage 1:34PM (6/25/2008)
Haha. SUV companies still don't like each other.
Reply
Keat 1:41PM (6/25/2008)
SUV companies? Are you serious?
Flashpoint 2:05PM (6/25/2008)
Ford and GM should NEVER MERGE.
Different car makers have different design philosophies...it is their conflicts and their competition that produce newer, better and more sophisticated designs.
The only winner is the consumer...and that $4M/year executive.
Its just too bad that America's Congress has sold out the entire country to the 3rd world - allowing trade deficits and fuel costs to run wild - forcing our major manufacturers to hurt so badly.
brn 2:22PM (6/25/2008)
SUV companies? Wasn't it just a year ago that Toyota was bragging about having more SUVs than any other line?
Vintage 2:56PM (6/25/2008)
This is true, and why I dislike Toyota.... they do, however, make small cars also. I think Toyota sucks in general, they produce nothing remotely exciting. No cool celicas, no supras, no TRD editions with any actual go fast parts.... just a boring, dull company with no personality.
Hunter 6:16AM (6/26/2008)
"Its just too bad that America's Congress has sold out the entire country to the 3rd world - allowing trade deficits and fuel costs to run wild - forcing our major manufacturers to hurt so badly."
Oh those lucky, lucky folks in the third world. They have ALL the advantages in life.
John Johnson 1:35PM (6/25/2008)
LS1 Mustang, lol
Reply
Chris 2:44PM (6/25/2008)
hey...then it will finally be able to keep up with 6 year old F-Bodies ;-) *ducks for cover*
i keeed i keeed
anyway...this would be a horrible idea....but as stated in the article....it does speak volumes about the current state of the auto industry
Chris 3:36PM (6/25/2008)
No. A Shelby Camaro.
Rafael Illan 1:36PM (6/25/2008)
Brain Fart perhaps? i can just imagine if it took place
THE NEW GM SS MUSTANG
Reply
MemphisNET 1:38PM (6/25/2008)
I'm surprised it even made it to ''the table''.
We have no one to blame but ourselves. For two decades we demanded bigger trucks, SUV's, V8's, AWD/4x4. We said 0-60 in 10 seconds in unacceptable - and now an economic bubble (which will pop) has sprung up, these guys are the center of automotive evil.
I'm all for more efficient vehicles, better technologies and the lot, but we can't 'blame' them for catering to a business that was working just fine until 6-8 months ago when things got REALLY out of control.
Reply
Kimura 1:51PM (6/25/2008)
Completely agree. IF we didn't buy millions of these trucks and SUVs they wouldn't have focused on them, but the demand was there and so they built what sold. Of course they should have simultaneously worked on the car portfolios, but what's done is done and better late than never.
Playing the blame game never solves problems.
jg 2:08PM (6/25/2008)
'We' didn't demand anything. 'We' were told what we wanted. Some saw the oil crisis and global warming coming and demanded better cars but were told they are crackpots, there is plenty of oil and the world is getting colder. Those years of denial by atuomakers is why they are now in the position where they need the gov't to come to the rescue and why we get 'this is our countryyyyyyyyy' instead of cars worth buying. Deny, distract, delay, and then act all surprised when the predicted happens.....as predicted.
NT 2:31PM (6/25/2008)
jg,
YOU may not have demanded it, but everyone else did. Nobody sells a car that no one wants. Millions upon millions of people asked/wanted for large trendy SUVS with enough wasted utility and space to fit the entirety of the US' national debt in.
Yes, GM TOLD You what you wanted, they said hey you want SUVs..because you have no mind of your own. Social trend has nothing to do with it. You're just a mindless lemming...or you're contradiction yourself.
MemphisNET 2:33PM (6/25/2008)
I'm not even talking about so-called global warming and oil crisis. I'm talking about an economic model in which we WANTED these trucks, regardless of how or why we want them (Image/status, false sense of security, the WANT, not need, to have bigger better faster more. etc)
Misguided or not, we were buying them. And ONLY when it started hurting our pocketbooks did we cry foul.
I love my Magnum R/T. I really do. But it's been banished to only hwy driving or when there is something to be moved/towed. I'll even keep it when/if $2/liter gas arrives because it just makes sense for my needs; lots of room, lots of towing capacity for my needs, comfortable, safe etc etc.
Vintage 2:44PM (6/25/2008)
Yes I can. They pandered to IDIOTS.
I never wanted huge trucks and the average family sedan to have 300hp. I'm not part of that issue, I drive small cars that get good mpg and have decent handling.
Cornholio 3:28PM (6/25/2008)
"We have no one to blame but ourselves."
Sorry, I’m calling BS on this. I don’t buy it. For YEARS, Ford, Chrysler, and especially GM have had precious little available in their car line that was even remotely interesting to me. If you wanted a large truck or SUV, they could hook you up. But some of us still wanted vehicles that were smaller or that were fun/nice to drive. For the most part, until very recently, small vehicles = crappy products at the Big 3.
Cases in point - In recent years, if I was shopping for a fun-to-drive compact car like the Mazda3, what did Ford, GM and Chrysler have to offer that was truly competitive? If I was shopping for a family sedan like an Accord or Camry, what competitive products did the Big 3 have to offer? If I wanted a ~30K luxury car, what did they have for me to consider that even remotely compared to the foreign competition? What about small trucks? What about midsize SUVs, even? WHERE WERE ALL THE COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS???
No, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are in this place because they put all their eggs in the large truck/SUV basket and all-but-ignored their car lines because they “didn't sell” and weren't nearly as profitable. That worked OK for them right up to the point gas prices went thru the roof. Now they're screwed because their "money products" are collecting dust on car lots and they have precious few _competitive_ smaller cars and trucks to choose from.
Yes, many foreign competitors have similar issues, but virtually all of them also have competitive small car and truck products they can push into the product pipeline almost immediately.
Contingency planning and long-term thinking are two things you expect from executives running the big auto manufacturers, considering the multi-million dollar salaries they take in every year. This fuel "crisis" we're in now was utterly predictable considering world events, but these companies did precious little to hedge their bets. Instead, they buried their heads in the sand hoped the problem would go away. The companies, and specifially the leaders of these companies, have no one to blame but themselves.
MemphisNET 3:47PM (6/25/2008)
I'm sorry, nobody held a gun to the heads of several million buyers and said ''you will take this SUV''. They could have bought wagons/hatchbacks (American's hate them) or minivans (but thats uncool).
Hell, you could have even bought the base engine instead of the Triton, the Hemi or big block Chev. 3.7 V6 in the Dakota or Ram may not be great on the drag strip, but it is plenty for the average user - especially for those who will never load it up or tow.
We have a choice. I agree that companies should have had a more balanced profile. I agree that they should have tried to improve efficiency all along. But don't be a baby and cry foul when we, and by we I mean the general buyer, said with cash on the table, 'I want a truck'
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just looking at it from a business standpoint - and AT THE TIME, I don't blame them one bit for their choices.
MemphisNET 3:58PM (6/25/2008)
Well, I had a longer reply, but I'll just put it this way.
Good on you for buying and being more efficient. I try to, but I recognize a need as well. And some people NEED these vehicles. Most buyers did not NEED them, they WANTED them. They are not misguided. They are just 'normal'. But the human condition is not what we're talking about. We're talking basic economics. People want, people get.
At the end of the day, millions and millions of people wanted SUV's/Trucks and they were willing to take a hit in fuel efficiency because of that want. We collectively said ''we want these'' - "we" may not be 100% of North American's, but when the big 3 had a controlling interest of over 50% of the buying public, and the other 50% was every other automaker, that's still a crapload of people WANTING these vehicles.
They are in trouble, they do need to change - but I still can't blame them for making what they did according to the times.
John 11:46PM (6/25/2008)
Memphis has it dead on.
Just because YOU didn't want an SUV doesn't mean everyone else didn't or they were forced to. YOU do not represent the millions of Americans that did actually want SUVs, YOU only represent YOU, so keep that "I didn't want an SUV, so everyone else must have been forced to want SUVs" to yourself.
Problems like these are almost always the fault of the consumer. Companies are only out to do buisiness and make profit on what SELLs, And rather then face up to it, most consumers would rather blame the big evil corporations.
It's the same reason we have to put up with such a crappy government when the Declaration gave us the ability to change it to our liking....yet people seem to think our government controls us.