GM, Chrysler May Need 'Considerably More' Aid Than $21.6 billion - Treasury

Well, they can use the money from AIG.

What's the point take one bonus away from one guy that didn't deserve it and give it to another guy that doesnt deserve it. Spend it on healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

stop giving them money! Throwing money at a problem is a very expensive way of fixing things.

I'm so sick of this, why does an entire country have to pay for the mistakes of some stupid CEOs ?

It's called socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us. It's the greatest hypocrisy of the US.. among many others.

At first people started to dislike GM and Chrysler for their inferior products priced the same as a higher quality honda or toyota. But now this hate is getting personal, when you see these bastards take your hard earned money from you regardless of if you buy one of their pieces of junk or not. And then they keep asking for more and more, with no results. I mean what have they come up with so far, a Corvette with stickers....The volt was in the works years before this happened, the camaro same thing it has been a work in progress for over 5 years. I think the government should just let them die, after this they wont make a comeback, you know why? People are starting to hate them on a more personal level, hell they have taken all this money from us and they didnt even have the decency to give a discount...Let them die, the demand for cars is still out there, toyota or honda or VW Group will take over their factories and give the people jobs.

The bigger issue is the fact that taxpayers are spending money on supporting inefficient car companies when no other lines of business would receive that support. Granted, the industry employs a lot of people, but it obviously does so at a much higher price than in other countries. Even if they were to receive more money, it would again be of no use: no one wants what they're selling, and they would just need more to stay afloat later down the line. It's simple economics.

Why is it that while more people agree with not giving these companies money, the more that the blame shifts to the designs, or CEO's supposedly padding their wallets? It seems very clear to me, you cannot operate a company where 1/5th of the people you are paying are still at work! Seriously, you cannot profit when you have a mass production company paying salaries and benefits that would make an equivalently skilled employee over at Ferrari jealous.

the big three will spend the rest of its 100 years paying its debt if it starts making money. it should be saved for really long term investment but from they way they are going, might as well shut them down and place them in the history books.

they really should spend the bulk of the money they are getting all on technology because over the last 30 years, money has gone to marketing. technology also contributes to quality so exporting will suddenly be attractive.

if faltering from competition, one has no other option other than to seek a formula to follow for survival and then lead when profiteering. consumers are gettting smart because things are getting more and more expensive.

I think in Europe there is a feeling that GM took over our factories long ago in order to stop us competing with them, and we think GM, Ford and Chrysler now have a duty to ALL of their employees to ensure they return to profitability and keep people in work. Ford Europe and GME (Opel & SAAB) are still successful companies compared to their American counterparts and I don't see why successful Europeans should be punished for American under investment and bad management.

if opel and saab are still profitable entities, then why are they looking to GM to bail them out?

It's simple stupidity to say that the government GIVES money to GM and others. They are not giving, they are LENDING the money! They will give this money back! The only difference from getting a loan from the bank is that they are probably not paying any interests, or how they call them... This whole thing is OK, really! Still, they should come up with some better cars and engines. They should use diesel engines, they have 30% better fuel economy. And even if we are talking about gasoline engines, VW Europe gets 170 HP from a 1.4 liter engine with two turbochargers, not from a 2.5 gas guzler as you do in the USA.

You don't know what you are saying, that twin turbo'd 1.4 liter still pumps just as much if not more gas then the 2.5 liter. Sure Europe can get plenty of hp out of their small engines, but that comes out of making a potentially fuel efficient engine.

To be fair the Japanese are just as bad at this, plus VW only just uprated its 2.5 to 170 hp from 150 in the New Beetle and Jetta. But as ways of getting power goes, the VW group TSI, PSA THP, FIAT group T-JET and Renault TCe engines are far better engines.

Joe, you keep saying that cr*p, but it doesn't become more true the more you say it. The VW 118TSI engine in the Golf uses 6.1L/100km, thats 160hp out of 1.4L, now tell me what car and what N/A engine produces those power figures with that fuel economy (excluding hybrids). Smaller engines are more fuel efficient because once you're up to speed and just require a small amount of power to maintain speed, you can drop the revs right down to minimise boost pressure and hence get the fuel efficiency of a NA 1.4L, then if you require power, you change revs, increase boost and get the power of a larger engine, with the bonus of lots of low down torque. A 2.5L NA engine at cruising speed and power requirements still sucks in more air and hence requires more fuel to be burnt, hence having lower fuel efficiency.

Fine, the Cobalt can get 5.4 L/100km and get away with 155hp. http://www.auto123.com/en/chevrolet/cobalt-4-dr/2009/specification/ls-xfe?carid=1091201402 [edit] and for an explanation... the larger displacement offers more low end torque so the car can be run at lower speeds then a smaller displacement engine, lower speeds mean that all that size displacement gets negated. And you know what? since it isn't boosted things wear less, and is cheaper to make and fix.

Joe, that site also says the average used price for a Cobalt is $51,168.

Give me epa numbers to compare, there are none on that golf. I am guessing it's a European combined cycle... in which case it would be a lot less... after all the 60mpg jetta got only 40mpg when rated by the epa. [edit] and to be fair to that site, there are a few listings in it's average at $99999

I eagerly await your Audi example, so I can tear that to shreds as well. I just can't be bothered at the moment to look up what exact engine and car you keep using to make your ridiculous point that Euro cars are less fuel efficient than American ones, or that Euro engines focus on size rather than fuel economy.

and to correct you, euro car's focus on power per liter, not just size.

Didn't the Audi A4 2.0L TDI get something like 53mpg average on a 2200km test through Switzerland? The US talks a lot of crap and use misleading figures to bait people into buying their junk, like the new F150 oh it get's 29mpg....My A$$ does that thing get 29mpg, maybe when it runs on 3 pistons at 90km/h on the hwy with an empty box and not towing anything. My dad had a 2007 Harley Davidson F-150 and towing a 2100lb transformer/ups station it got 4mpg in the city. I took it out one time to Toronto which is about 61km from where i live, there and back was 1/4 tank of gas which was about 30$ at the time. Thats like 11mpg, it was terrible. My friend in his 2003 TDI golf got on average 58mpg on the hwy, and now with his brand new 2008 gets 61mpg. True he drives like a grandma, but those figures are very impressive. Also joe 5.4 is not that impressive, at 90km/h in 5th gear i was getting 6.3l/100km in my 320whp 9-5 aero, but that changed drastically at speeds above 120km/h, and at 282km/h(fastest i went) i was getting 32L/100km. What i'm getting at is north american vehicles can get those "amazing" figures only in their super controlled testing environment, real life figures are very different. With the TDIs i have to say that their figures are almost EXACTLY what the european combined cycle says. Stop making excuses everybody that knows somebody with a TDI will tell you they get between 1100-1300km/tank on the hwy. I will tell you when we went to Quebec which is about 1100km each way we got there on 1 tank and still had a little bit, on the way back same thing 1 tank. American cars are a joke, i remember calculating the equivalent MPG for the Volt based on cost of electricity to gasoline, and back when gas was 1.10$ it was 57mpg, now when its at 0.84$ it is more like 44mpg which is a joke.

I don't understand how you can be so ignorant. You blatantly compare epa mileages to european cycles, and you give worst case scenario's, and you blindly speak out of your a$$ about how that company did their mileage test. Every time you see a good number from an american car company you foo foo it saying that number was achieved in top gear at 90km/h. You are the most ignorant biased person I know. At least I like foreign and american cars, I may dislike porsche/benz, but those at least that is purely on the opinion base of looks. Not numbers. Get a life radmeister, no, nevermind, get an opinion that doesn't make you sound handicapped.

I think you are the ignorant one, that doesn't want to accept reality and all you do is state OH European cycle is cheating and wrong US cycle is better and more realistic...I'm telling you from experience that the EPA standard is BS and doesn't apply to the real world. I guess Audi lied when they drove across Switzerland with multiple cars and all of them were in the range of 50mpg +-3mpg. I guess EPA is right those cars only get 40mpg right? Audi carefully started at the top of the Alps and coasted down 2200km...I guess the same way i drove 1100km in a downhill vacuum tunnel all the way to Quebec on 1 tank of diesel in a magical 2003 TDI. And when my dad had his F150(big mistake, has a sprinter now) leprechauns siphoned fuel out of my tank in Toronto....But noo the EPA is right the F150 gets 29mpg.

I am stating that you cannot compare the cycles, what is nice with the epa ratings is that they are the worst case scenario. I would much prefer a debate with a single set of numbers such as the epa. Rather then what you so willingly are doing by comparing the epa mileage to the european milage. That and you are right, there are so many factors that effect the economy. The fact that your dad has a fully loaded version of the f150 with the largest engine choice and with a massive load in the back makes your numbers even more useless then the epa ones.