DetN: GM May "Absorb" Chrysler

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Absorb? Absurd! Still, The Detroit News is reporting the GM Chrysler merger deal as if it exists. Which, if true, is one scary ass concept. Well, to most rational people. Which, according to the trifecta of scribes assigned to story, doesn’t include everyone. “Analysts say a deal along the lines of Chrysler’s purchase of AMC, which eliminated Detroit’s No. 4 automaker as an entity and all its brands except Jeep, would make sense for GM.” Huh? Ladies and gentlemen, Aaron Bragman, an analyst at Global Insight: “For GM, the only reason to absorb Chrysler would be to eliminate a competitor.” Yes, but does that make any sense? No comment. So, never mind analysts. Let’s talk to someone in the shadows. “The source familiar with the negotiations told The Detroit News that GM could cut costs by eliminating much of Chrysler’s staff and gradually shifting production of Chrysler vehicles to use more GM components.” THE source? We’re down to one now are we? And is that BS or what? But wait! There’s more!

“At GM, many top executives support acquiring Chrysler, but only in a deal like Chrysler’s acquisition of AMC from Renault.” Many? How many? Who? Look, I’m not saying this is conjecture masquerading as journalism. OK, I am. Especially when I read supporting nonsense like this: “Analysts say a deal along the lines of Chrysler’s purchase of AMC, which eliminated Detroit’s No. 4 automaker as an entity and all its brands except Jeep, would make sense for GM. Such a deal would differ from the 1998 acquisition of Chrysler by Germany’s Daimler-Benz AG, which left the U.S. carmaker operating intact as a separate division. Instead, Chrysler would be completely absorbed into GM and melded into its car making and other operations over time.” The truth is that both automakers are going down. While a merger would be crowning buffoonery in an epic tale of missed opportunties and squandered fortunes, even Detroit execs know that. Don’t they?

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
2 of 19 comments
  • 50merc 50merc on Oct 16, 2008

    ajla: "If GM merges with Chrysler, then they can revive AMC, Eagle, and Plymouth." Don't forget DeSoto. There's a lot of pent-up demand for DeSoto. And they wouldn't need to make new commercials; they could just run old clips of Groucho Marx singing "It's de-lovely...." Damned if I can see why GM would want to acquire Chrysler. They don't need the production capacity or the brands or the dealer network. And if GM outlasts Chrysler, it can buy the dies and tools for T&Cs and Caravans at a bankruptcy auction.

  • John Horner John Horner on Oct 17, 2008

    I suspect there is more fire to go with the smoke we are seeing in the press than might seem reasonable. Remember, we are talking about Detroit Suits here.

  • Wolfwagen I expect Renault to be less popular than Fiat
  • ToolGuy Helium-3, baby!
  • Roman Our 1999 Pontiac Sunfire Gt is still running without any issues. 25 years and counting.
  • 28-Cars-Later I thought today's young people weren't even getting licenses to drive, so which is it?
  • 28-Cars-Later Either last year or the year before I was discussing how The Dytopia™'s BEV schemes do not scale simply because the existing grid cannot generate enough power to replace ICE and the gigantic investment necessary in the grid was not forthcoming (Zelensky needed another house in Miami Beach after all you b!gots). So it struck me the only path to sort of do it is natural gas which became abundantly cheap 15 years ago because of fracking. Fast forward to more recently and surprise surprise we're attacking civilian use of natural gas out of nowhere for very little benefit. I couldn't find any good data to break down natural gas consumption between industrial use and civilian use, but spitballing I'd say the two largest chunks would be power generation and heating followed by small slices for other industrial use and home appliances- the latter probably being 5% or less (on my own gas bill its about 3-10% for the non furnace gas use depending on laundry loads). Some argued The Dystopia wanted to take away any energy freedom the proles have outside of electricity which they control on their whims, but I'm thinking that small number is optimal for them to take back because it doesn't force any additional infrastructure cost to gain (i.e. the low hanging fruit). As more power plants are spun up I expect a slow consolidation away from civilian nat gas because ManBearPig or whatever other fairy tale, but its really to power the gilded electronic cage they are constructing out of this once great nation. Seriously, break this down:Self lubricating Diesel engine with conventional OTS components, built for more than a ten year lifespan and 1m or more miles of use which can quickly be refueled at hundreds of locations (or fuel be brought to them). Pure BEV with some large amount of rare earths with a ten (?) year lifespan and perhaps 1m miles use but which has an avg daily downtime of 2 hours (?) to refuel and must be powered by a limited number of natural gas stations at static points (theoretically you could put a diesel fuel depot anywhere must faster and refill it with trucks). Other than ManBearPig fiction, your only savings in emissions is whatever the DEF isn't catching now (which is up to 90% in civilian diesel use per JLR) minus whatever emissions sins the nat gas burning creates. Think about how ridiculous all of this is to save 10-20% of emissions of only heavy trucks (BEV ships aren't ever going to be a thing) and you still have to frack like mad to have the natural gas to do it which would create the diesel in the first place. What is the nonsense?