After 103 years of stratospheric heights and immeasurable lows, General Motors Corp. has died. Motors Liquidation Co., or "Old GM," as it became known during the 2009 bankruptcy reorganization, was quietly dissolved on Thursday, Dec. 15, taking the company's bad debts and liabilities along with it.

The dissolution leaves the newly formed General Motors. Co. to live on as the company's fitter and better-financed replacement. The latter, as you'll recall, benefited from a massive government bailout of nearly $50 billion and the ability to restructure contracts with its suppliers, dealership bodies and unions. The surprisingly expeditious reorganization saw GM shed its Hummer, Pontiac and Saturn nameplates, along with Swedish automaker Saab (whose own efforts to find footing as an independent automaker sputtered into bankruptcy earlier today). A far healthier company today, "New GM" is turning a profit with just four U.S. nameplates – Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC... and it's enjoying a newfound run of competitiveness.

For a quick refresher on the history of Old GM, check out a eulogy of sorts by The Detroit News.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 48 Comments
      LUSTSTANG S-197
      • 3 Years Ago
      That's good to hear that the old GM is in its final resting place. Only time will tell if the company can be profitable and competitive from here on out. I will add that I would like it's odds better if the UAW were completely out of the picture, as it is no longer needed in this day and age, and is part of the reason "Old GM" failed in the first place.
      Avinash Machado
      • 3 Years Ago
      Time to bring back Pontiac.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Rampant
        • 3 Years Ago
        Trolling again i see.
        LUSTSTANG S-197
        • 3 Years Ago
        Your name suit you quite well because whenever we see your name, it's always OBVIOUS that an ignorant post resides below. LOL
        • 3 Years Ago
        [blocked]
      alexkoolur
      • 3 Years Ago
      SAAB SUCKS. GM SUCKS. Govt throwing $ after failed business models...and then we wonder why the US isn't competitive in a global economy...spend our capital to keep dying old models afloat instead of allowing the free market to rebuild itself.....so short sighted
      DaysGone
      • 3 Years Ago
      Is this some kind of joke? Old GM, new GM, still GM! Not much change is evident. As far as I know the same people work there as before in their same positions and the policies are still the same, just having to juggle fewer brands and more taxpayer's money to spend. The cars are still mediocre and lacking any kind of emotion or automotive enthusiasm. Competitive? Not. Sorry, I'd have to say still the same Old GM, never died and never buried. It's just another year.
        LUSTSTANG S-197
        • 3 Years Ago
        @DaysGone
        I hate to say it, but I agree. With the exception the Camaro, Corvette, and CTS, GM's current lineup is pretty uninspiring. When it comes to excitement and enthusiasm, it appears GM is only willing to do the bare minimum. This is particularly the case with their smaller and mid-sized cars. Given what I've heard about the next Impala, it doesn't sound like that's going to change any time soon.
          Xedicon
          • 3 Years Ago
          @LUSTSTANG S-197
          I don't know if I agree with the comment about their smaller cars. Honestly the Cruze is a nice car, and the Sonic got good reviews, including right here on AB. I'm not saying either machine is the shining example in their respective classes, but they're at least good cars that reviews and owners enjoy driving. It may just be that not enough time has passed for the newer reality of GMs lineup to sink in. Also the exceptions you list are very profitable segments - it's not unknown for only 2 or 3 hot selling vehicles to prop up a manufacturer for a period or two at least, so GM has some good momentum going and very well should be able to sink a few more bucks into R&D, which I think is what's happening with the ATS. Time will tell!
          LUSTSTANG S-197
          • 3 Years Ago
          @LUSTSTANG S-197
          In other words, I am just saying they should try to make their small/mid-sized cars more exciting instead of just striving to sell appliances, aka disposable cars. For too long, the Big 3 have virtually ignored the compact segment, which is part of why they have lost so many potential customers to the likes of Honda, Subaru, VW, Toyota, etc. So, why not a Cruze that makes a viable WRX and GTI competitor, a Malibu that can take on a Legacy GT, and an Impala that can go toe to toe with the Dodge Charger? That would be one sexy lineup if you ask me. Doing one or more of the above would improve GM's lineup and image immensely. Would you not agree?
          LUSTSTANG S-197
          • 3 Years Ago
          @LUSTSTANG S-197
          How is it I get voted down that many times for simply agreeing with the above poster by saying GM should put more passion into its smaller cars so as to compete with import brands. Would you all not like to see a turbo-charged, awd Cruze with a 6 speed, or a sporty Malibu with the same specs? I thought this was a site for enthusiasts. Am I wrong? Face it, the domestics have built great trucks, and V8 powered performance cars, and I commend them for that. Now, when it comes to compacts/sport compacts and mid-sized sedans, they have been owned by the Japanese and Germans for decades, in terms of quality, design, reliability, and enthusiast appeal. Vote me down if you will, but that is a fact.
        Bucks
        • 3 Years Ago
        @DaysGone
        You're right, plus they get out of jail scott free no thanks to the inept management of the business. Take a leaf out of Mulally's Book.. GM need to improve the product and brand rep.
      Bruno Nekic
      • 3 Years Ago
      Aren't all the same people in charge that collapsed the old GM? If so then it can easily happen again.
      Hossi Blumengaarten
      • 3 Years Ago
      gm SUCKS even now guys are starting to rebadge the Cruze as a Buick and who know what else they have in mind, I just want to say that I supported the bailout until I found out that the US GOV bailed GM and Chrysler in the 70s!!!!!!! read about it guys, in what 30 or 40 years the gov will bail them out again it happened before
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Hossi Blumengaarten
        [blocked]
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Hossi Blumengaarten
        [blocked]
        tylermars.design
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Hossi Blumengaarten
        you obviously haven't drivin a buick lately
        tipdrip215
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Hossi Blumengaarten
        Chrysler got bailed out in '79, GM was never bailed out in the 70's. Check your facts.
      Jonathan S
      • 3 Years Ago
      I'm sure I'm missing many facts, but I really consider GM pretty despicable. I will never, ever, buy a GM. Between bailouts and this old-GM vs. new-GM business, and they're lack of supporting the customers who bought the old-GM cars, it's all pretty amoral. Chrysler is only marginally better. Out of the "big three" Ford is the only company I trust enough to actually buy their product (since they seemed to be responsible enough to not need a government hand-out to stay afloat).
        darkness
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Jonathan S
        But their products suck so keep trolling.
        cfphelps
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Jonathan S
        Yeah the difference is, Ford failed first, back when they were able to still get a loan. They've done well since, and I'm not trying to take that away, but they were actually in worse shape than GM and Chrysler so that they needed help first. Just so happens that they failed before the rest of the economy dropped out from under everyone, so GM and Chrysler were left with no one willing to give loans anymore. Not sure they are more "trustworthy" for doing worse, but like I said in the beginning, they have turned it around now and are putting out some great products.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      KAG
      • 3 Years Ago
      Didn't Old GM make new Gm so they could default on there debt to all the suppliers?
      TriShield
      • 3 Years Ago
      Still two brands too big, but much better than it was five years ago. Of course, the government getting involved insured the continued survival of the UAW. If not for the Obama Admin the UAW would likely be history along with all the brands shed the past few years, as it should be. It's a shame they recieved favor over the bondholders and many of the dealer body, whom weren't costing GM anything. Aside from the hubris and questionable brand/product strategy of GM's former leadership the UAW remains the largest obstacle to sustained profitability. If GM went through bankruptcy normally they would have emerged just the same, perhaps even better offer. Chrysler not so much.
      ELG
      • 3 Years Ago
      would have been fitter and better had it shed its greedy big labor contracts.
    • Load More Comments