a64armt wrote:
I never could understand why GM had two lines of truck (Chevrolet and GMC). I do realize that GMC is their “professional grade” and does offer some luxury versions, but it still seems that they are going to run with “badge engineering” until it bankrupts them again. It seems counterproductive to have two lines under the same roof competing with each other.
Still, it will be a long time before I buy a GM or Chrysler product (I won’t say “never”). While Ford did take loans, the bailouts and the way the bankruptcies were handled didn’t sit well with me. The unions made out, but the creditors and bond holders got the shaft. Once again the law took back seat to union backed politics. I really wish Chrysler and GM were both forced into bankruptcy court in the beginning rather than the bailouts and then bankruptcy. It is for these reasons I will not consider one of their products. I will drive an old used Ford that I have to keep together with tape and bailing wire to avoid driving a GM or Chrysler.
While I am a Ford owner, I have to admit I have never been happy with the post sale service.
I think that all three of the U.S. Manufacturers would lose a significant number of sales if Toyota (or Nissan) built and sold a viable 1 ton dually diesel truck for the U.S. personal vehicle market.
OJ
Hum? Union driven wages sure bought a lot of RV trailers, boats and homes over the last 6 decades or so. It does not matter if you belonged to one or not, as you still benefited from their collective bargaining! A lot of people seem to have a hard time understanding that. It does not matter what you pay the working class, they spend it and the money ends up at the same final point. Stop passing it through the working mans hands and who is going to buy products? Basic economics 101, if people do not have money, they can not buy "things"!
Chris
