By on June 9, 2015

Fiat Coupe Getting Ready To Be Married

How desperate has FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne become about marrying off his company? He’s asking activist investors to prod General Motors to the chapel.

Marchionne recently began reaching out to hedge funds and other activist investors to help bring FCA and GM (or a European automaker) together to consolidate resources, Wall Street Journal reports.

The search, which is coming up blank thus far, is the latest in the CEO’s attempt to find a happy ending for his increasingly desperate romantic tragicomedy film, fearing excess production and duplicate costs in engineering, R&D et al threaten future profitability of the overall industry.

For now, though, FCA’s low profit margins do not make for a good partner with stronger players, while Marchionne’s dealings with GM leave much to be desired. In 2005, he convinced the Detroit automaker to pay $2 billion to not buy Fiat — in hospice care by then — a move which also dissolved a five-year-old partnership to produce engines and transmissions together.

More recently, Marchionne attempted to woo GM back with an email to CEO Mary Barra suggesting as much. The automaker is transitioning its lineup to global architectures and can build said lineup on a broader scale than FCA. GM is also undergoing an internal consolidation to further boost profits, a plan Barra and others in management won’t allow to be derailed by outside distractions like Marchionne holding up a boombox in front of the RenCen playing Peter Gabriel, hoping GM will say anything but no.

However, Barra’s recent dealings with activist investors over a share buyback of $8 billion — resulting in a $5 billion buyback with no further issues regarding board seats — has given Marchionne hope for his own cause, which could become more aggressive with every breath GM takes.

[Photo credit: hamster!/Flickr/CC BY-ND 2.0]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

77 Comments on “Marchionne Planning Shotgun Wedding For FCA With General Motors...”


  • avatar
    APaGttH

    /facepalm

    Lets go over recent history.

    GM sold a controlling interesting in GMAC to Cerberus in May of 2006, which received anti-trust approval in April of 2007. GM also sold a significant stake of its GMAC mortgage business to a group of three private investors, creating Capmark Financial Group, that went bankrupt with the housing bust and was acquired by Berkshire Hathaway.

    At the time of the sale, it was seen as a smart move by GM to jettison the toxic mortgage assets to other companies before the housing meltdown.

    Cerberus was basically paid to take the charred remains of an abused and neglected Chrysler from Daimler in 2007.

    As the economy tanked in late 2007, Cerberus saw the writing on the wall. In the summer of 2008 they started active talks with General Motors for a merger, which GM was not interested in at all. Basically GM concluded that a sinking rock, tied to another sinking rock, will just sink faster. Additionally Chrysler just didn’t have a lot of assets that would have interested GM (certainly not trucks, fullsize SUVs, or uncompetitive sedans – GM had plenty of those).

    So Cerberus did what any other company would do with a controlling interest in the finance arm of another company that they want that company to buy troubled assets from.

    They froze their credit. Cerberus essentially put their foot on GM’s windpipe, while GM was already gasping for breath and blue in the first place by declaring no car loans for anyone with a FICO below 720, and dealer floor financing must be paid in full within the next 30 days.

    So they cut off GM from 65% of the car buying market on their finance arm, and essential froze the dealers ability to floor finance for inventory. The strategy was clear – force GM to buy Chrysler or starve them out.

    Lehman Brothers collapsed on September 14, 2008, and history has shown that the world economic centers were literally, not figuratively, literally 24 to 48 hours from riots in a full on global financial panic.

    It was the end of GM and Chrysler combined – and we know the rest of the story.

    There is nothing good that will come from the GM/Chrysler merger – period – just as there would be no good for it back in 2007 (even without the economic crisis).

    I find some irony that with all the ire, angst, and hatred at GM for getting bailed out, Chrysler has largely gotten a free pass. Current events are indicating that FCA is not a healthy company despite a number of successes (Jeep is a stand out) — delayed road maps, product launch delays, and some things not delivering as promised.

    Clearly if some existing product lines are going to have to soldier on with nearly decade old taken from Mercedes design (from an era when Mercedes design wasn’t exactly great) for another five years, there is big problems in Italy.

    Selling Chrysler to GM will tie a medium size rock, to a struggling swimmer who can just keep their head above water and make some forward progress.

    FCA got problems, and an activist investor “sale” to GM will simply tank both companies.

    Sergio should be talking to the Indians or Chinese – someone is going to want Jeep – and you can force Dodge/Chrysler on them as part of the package.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      This post impresses me, this is the first time I have heard the GM-Cerberus/Chrysler backstory. One wonders if the fall of GM would have been softened without being cut off from GMAC financing.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      I would dispute the pro-GM characterization. GMAC itself was in deep Shiite circa 2008, which itself was also ultimately bailed out.

      http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/gmacs-loss-is-another-hit-for-cerberus-and-gm

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/25/AR2008122501060.html

      GM’s trouble ran much deeper than just the financial crisis. The global crash just pushed it over the edge of the cliff that it was perched on prior to the collapse.

      Bad products >>> loss of brand equity >>> loss of pricing power >>> losses >>> bankruptcy.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        …Basically GM concluded that a sinking rock, tied to another sinking rock, will just sink faster…

        …Cerberus essentially put their foot on GM’s windpipe, while GM was already gasping for breath and blue in the first place…

        I don’t see how GM is portrayed as not having problems here.

        The GM sell off GMAC assets in 2006 was applauded by the bubblevision types at the time it was announced. GMAC had a junk rating in 2006 and was already having access to capital problems – hence the getting rid of the toxic mess was a smart move.

        I further wrote:

        …Chrysler just didn’t have a lot of assets that would have interested GM (certainly not trucks, fullsize SUVs, or uncompetitive sedans – GM had plenty of those)…

        You certainly couldn’t call GMT900 uncompetitive during the time – and certainly the incredibly stale W-bodies and the rather awful Epsilon I vehicles wouldn’t have gained much from the Avenger, 200, and Neon entering the product mix.

        The oooooooooooooo pro-GM is quite tiresome at this point. I wish Mark would publish my Camaro review I submitted, but I’m sure any faint praise contained their in would be considered promotion.

        …I find some irony that with all the ire, angst, and hatred at GM for getting bailed out, Chrysler has largely gotten a free pass. ..

        There is nothing “nonfactual” about this statement. You rarely see auto bailout = Chrysler + GM= evil in the same discussion, certainly among the B&B you don’t. You see plenty of auto bailout = GM = evil all over the place.

        GM is investing in product, also that is clearly visible. Are they the right investments is a whole different issue – for a whole different thread. FCA just announced they are delaying product launches and updates, some by half-a-decade. You don’t do that unless you’re running short on R&D resources, dollars, or both. Jeep may be incredibly healthy, RAM may be on a tear, but Chrysler, Fiat and Alfa are huge stones around the neck, RAM isn’t a global brand, and slapping the Hellcat power train into everything that will fit it under the hood won’t save this company.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I would point out while the “Chrysler” name isn’t the strongest Fiat, Alfa, Lancia etc were weak prior to the giveaway to the former Fiat S.p.a. The European part of the company needs to be shored up else it might bring the whole thing down. You could lose the “Chrysler” model brand name tomorrow and not much would change.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            Of the three (Fiat, Alfa and Lancia) only Fiat isn’t a Scion grade zombie.

            The European market problem is a huge problem for FCA – I still think the answer for survival is in China or India. The only other possible hook up that makes even a shred of sense is Hyundai/Kia. Nissan-Renault have their own issues, Honda doesn’t want the baggage, Ford, Toyota, VAG, and GM don’t need it, Fuji Heavy Industries is too small, Mazda is too small, Daimler AG bwhahahahaha, BMW no way, Mitsubishi forget it. That really leaves Tata (doubtful) or some hookup with Chinese investors.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Daimler AG bwhahahahaha…”

            Yeah, include a Japanese company and we could re-create the Axis, with the Italians once again providing comic relief and endless fail.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            @FreedMike

            Opel + FCA + Mitsubishi

            A match made in automotive Hell.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          GMAC started sharply reducing its lending and tightening its terms for the same reason that other financial institutions were acting in a similar fashion — because they were in deep s**t and they were waiting for the world to end as they embraced for what was promising to be one hell of a depression.

          The entire financial market was grinding to a halt. Why would a troubled performer such as GMAC have been an exception? Financial institutions tend to cut off and reduce the credit when they don’t expect to be repaid.

    • 0 avatar
      alexndr333

      A good post, here. I think Mr. Marchionne is right on the world-wide over-capacity problem. It’s an especially big problem in Europe, of which the French (and Mr. Ghosn) are particularly aware. Unfortunately, Mr. Marchionne can’t face the appropriate prescription.

      If the Italian government isn’t interested in a quick-rinse bankruptcy / bailout the way the USA saved GM and Chrysler, then FIAT should probably close down. We have seen some medium-term benefits of saving GM and, to a certain degree, Chrysler / Jeep. If the good folks running the Boot can’t find their way to a bailout / restructuring to bring more cost-competitiveness to FIAT, and all the other auto companies see it as too toxic to marry, then let the company go.

    • 0 avatar

      The problem isn’t that FCA is still selling a number of vehicles with old Mercedes-Benz technology; it’s that FCA’s bestsellers are predominantly large, RWD V6 and V8-powered vehicles when very stringent fuel-economy regulations are just around the corner and everyone else is far better prepared. What FCA needs isn’t a merger, but maybe to team up with a company building smaller, more-fuel-efficient platforms and share development costs. I think Mazda would be a good candidate for that.

      • 0 avatar
        Fred

        I was going to suggest Fiat but then I looked at their European offers and it’s all 500 derivatives, except for something called Freemont.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Isn’t that an ancient Mitsubishi that was never competitive in any form?

          • 0 avatar
            baconator

            The Freemont is a rebadge of the Dodge Journey. Which shares the GS platform with a couple Mitsubishis (including, improbably, the Lancer EVO) but was never itself rebadged as a Mitsubishi.

          • 0 avatar

            Eww…I think my dad’s Dodge Caliber was on that platform. I can’t say I wasn’t thrilled when he wrecked it and bought a *real* car (a Sonata).

      • 0 avatar
        stodge

        FCA needs Suzuki? Except Suzuki could swallow them whole without blinking. Sorry, I’m trying to imagine ways to get an improved Kizashi back to North America! :)

  • avatar
    thornmark

    According to this guy, http://www.autoextremist.com/, Marchionne is starving Chrysler and Jeep and diverting resources to moribund Alfa.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    This is making Marchionne and FCA as a whole seem weak and heading for a cliff with no brakes. He needs to focus on making FCA’s products better, such as an improved Dart, and quit worring about riding someone elses coat tails. The only reason I can think of that hes pushing for this so hard is that he knows that FCA has few if any new products (which they need badly) in development and is hoping to limp along by gluing Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge, etc badges on someone elses hard work.

    No major automaker would be wise to get hitched to FCA. Not GM, not Ford, not VAG, not Toyota and not Honda. All of the aformentioned have strong product lineups (except VW in North America), plenty of new products on the way, and little to worry about. Even if I were a small player like Mazda or Mitsubishi, Id still run from FCA.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      An interesting comparison is Mazda. They are tiny and were struggling for many years. Their solution? Develop some world-class engine & handling technology that would be valuable. Now, they’ve partnered up with Toyota to gain the economies of partnership that Marchionne wants. (IMO, Toyota has the better end in the Mazda/Toyota partnership, but Mazda had to do it because they simply don’t have the R&D bandwidth.)

      Maybe if FCA had technology that someone else wanted they wouldn’t continue to get rejected. But maybe they wouldn’t be in such dire straights, either.

  • avatar
    Pahaska

    I don’t know about other parts of the country, but FCA is desperately pushing the 300 here on multiple stations with 2 or 3 ads in a single TV program. Sadly, I think the car is outdated, hideous, and the photography in the ad does it no favors.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      That might be a group of dealers in the region loaded with 300 inventory banding together to pay for regional ads. FCA primarily blows its advertising budget on the Super Bowl and national ads.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    My guess is that Marchionne wants to create momentum in order to induce PSA to do a deal. GM is just a means to an end.

  • avatar
    Fred

    Except for Jeep I can’t think of a single reason GM would want any thing that FCA would be selling. In fact GM would benefit if FCA went away.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      It’s been “except for Jeep” for decades. Jeep has been the lure for every Chrysler suitor for the last 30 years, and Jeep is what suckered Chrysler into merging with AMC.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Right. Except for Jeep, what has Chrysler had that’s way desirable and “Gotta have!” since 1980?

        The uhh… PT Cruiser? Crossfire? Sebring Coupe?

        NADA. That’s what.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Your recollection of history is lacking. Especially the omission of the 1990’s when Chrysler was a very hot acquisition target due to some very successful products.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            For vans? Yes they had good vans.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The JGC was one of those products. Really besides Jeep, the Dodge Ram in MY93ish, and LH, Chrysler didn’t have alot new going on in the 90s, just these and the very profitable K car slowly dying off. Chrysler had invented the minivan in the 80s, and just coasted on it in the 90s.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            They sold a lot of pickup trucks, SUVs and car models which proved to be popular and profitable during that era. The Neon was hot, the LH cars did fairly well and even the JA cars did well in the 90s. The Durango was popular too, not to mention half a million minivans per year.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            Didn’t the ’94 Ram drastically increase Chrysler’s market share in the truck market? I’ve certainly seen a lot more 94-01 Rams than the preceding generation.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The JA cars sold reasonably well but they were nothing to write home about, and really not much different than their domestic transverse FWD competition. LH at least, was very different. I don’t really remember the Neon being “hot” but maybe it was. I suppose Durango had a following for awhile, but it was essentially a Dakota IIRC.

          • 0 avatar
            dwford

            Chrysler has had several periods of financial stress, followed by a period of hot product, a period of mediocre product, then another financial stress. Every take over has been due to the strength of the Jeep brand, even when they product wasn’t 100%.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            “Chrysler has had several periods of financial stress, followed by a period of hot product, a period of mediocre product, then another financial stress”

            Another way of looking at it is that they had several periods of product stagnation, followed by a merger that brought in fresh engineering, and then a slow decline, and then another merger.
            Renault/AMC gave them a shot in the arm in the late 80s (Cherokee, LH), then Mercedes (300, updated Grand Cherokee), and now Fiat (new Cherokee, 200). Arguably, the K-car era was set-up by the Horizon, which was a Simca product.
            Maybe Sergio is anticipating the next go-around.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            I remember this 97 minute long (give or take) Dodge Ram commercial they showed in the 90’s – it was called Twister.

            The Dodge Ram is amazing, it has self repairing glass, regenerating tailgates, hail dents disappear before your eyes, and you can drive it through FIRE!

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “The JA cars sold reasonably well but they were nothing to write home about, and really not much different than their domestic transverse FWD competition.”

            They were critically acclaimed at the time and were definitely better than the domestic competition. Think about it, Contour, Taurus, Malibu, Lumina. They had good suspensions, handled well and had a lot of interior room.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            “Your recollection of history is lacking. Especially the omission of the 1990’s when Chrysler was a very hot acquisition target due to some very successful products.”

            That’s right–they were the world’s leader in minivans.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The Ford Contour was introduced in MY94 while JA cars came out for MY95 and the N-body Malibu not being released until MY97. While the Contour in hindsight was probably inferior, it made Car and Driver’s Ten best list for three years (and was later nearly recanted). Per Wiki, the it was the LH cars, not JA cars, which competed with DN101 Taurus and W-body Lumina (the DN101 being introduced for MY96 and certainly being superior to JA in options and build quality). JA configured correctly was probably superior to N-body, but ultimately it was a Hitler/Stalin argument as both have suffered build quality issues as the years rolled on. The final JA car generation offered the much maligned and troublesome 2.7 V6, something which its non-Chrysler contemporaries cannot claim.

            “Like the LH, it was a cab forward design. While this platform was numerically successful, the highest volume for family cars competing against cars like the Taurus, Accord or Camry would move to the LH platform cars, which were often classified as full-size.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_JA_platform

            “The Contour and Mystique were on Car and Driver magazine’s Ten Best list for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Although Car and Driver staff wrote an article in 2009 apologizing for the inclusion of the Ford Contour on the “Ten Best” list, it was the only car the staff did not outright recant from the list, but did cite that, in hindsight, the car should have been considered too small for its price range to properly meet criteria, and that this is the likely reason for the car’s failure to achieve widespread appeal”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo_%28first_generation%29

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          “Right. Except for Jeep, what has Chrysler had that’s way desirable and “Gotta have!” since 1980?”

          BTSR must be out of the loop right now…

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          GLH, Talon, Conquest TSi, Viper, cab-forward sedans beat anything Ford or GM offered in the 90s… just off the top of my head.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          I would agree if you changed that to about 2000/2003. Really the 1980s and 1990s were Chrysler’s decades to lose and lose they did when they kept the cab-forward low and wide proportions much longer than the market was interested. The market went tall and boxy without them and their products withered on the vine because Jeep purists and a cheap product planning kept vehicles on the road longer than they were competitive.

          By the way, the PT Cruiser was good for 150K units a year on average over the lifetime of the model. It was a saving grace and honestly a complete redesign using the same 2-box proportions would have made it relevant as a small CUV in the last 5-years.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    CP.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    I remember 10 yrs ago when GM anted up $2 bil in palimony to split from FIAT the last time. What a crazy world it is….

  • avatar
    kmoney

    At least it would be somewhat more of a “merger of equals” than DaimlerChrysler.

  • avatar
    bunkie

    Personally, I think that Marchione is wrong. Consolidation isn’t the answer to controlling development costs, sharing those among firms is. Look at transmissions: Between third-parties such as ZF and the joint development typified by the GM-Ford effort more and more firms are considering the abandonment of exclusive in-house development. Going forward, I’ll bet we see more and more of this.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      He wants to save on platform development.

      Reading between the lines, he must not see many prospects from creating substantial market share increases by growing brands organically, at least not in Europe. Rather, the way to get the economies of scale is to take over brands that already exist and push down their costs. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em (together).

  • avatar
    Sigivald

    Looking at the image name tells me the car in the title graphic is a Fiat coupe.

    When and where does/did Fiat use that //// badge?

    Just a UK thing, or…?

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      They only brought back that vintage red badge with the 500 and onward. Their other vehicles for a long time had the four slats badge. Each piece of the badge has one letter on it. Then it morphed into a circular FIAT badge, with no color, then the red badge of today.

      Before the 80s, there was FIAT on the front, each letter in a little square block. In the 80s and early 90s, the slats badge WAS the grille (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/1995_Fiat_Panda.jpg) Then by the mid-90s we had the smaller slats badge. Switch from slats badge to circular around 1999. Switch from circle to red circle in 07 with creation of the new 500.

      The car is literally just called Coupe, by the way. They used one for a Top Gear challenge a few years ago.

      • 0 avatar
        CRConrad

        The slats developed from the vertical edges between and outside the preceding little slanted-square letter blocks.

        The coupé was called the Barchetta at least in some European markets. But, yeah, while that is literally Italian for “little boat”, in automotive terms it means pretty much “coupé”.

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      The Fiat Coupe was a pretty nice car for it’s day.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Wait, wasn’t this marriage tried before?

  • avatar
    nguyenvuminh

    He sees bad days ahead for FCA and needs help.
    People talk like he can spin off bits and pieces and it sounds good for a corp finance movie but the reality is that breaking Fiat/FCA up to sell is something he cannot do. The Italian government has a social/economic/political interest in keeping Fiat afloat (think of all those labor union votes) so merge is the likely option (acquisition is not because FCA is not strong enough). The issue is who is willing to merge with FCA. It’s not like this is something that just came up, it’s been bat around for the last 10 years but Fiat (and even now as FCA) is still unattractive to the other car mfrs. To the Western car mfrs, FCA has inferior technology, lack R&D assets, and poor brand reputation. Which makes the Chinese car mfrs the viable alternatives as a partner but even the Chinese car mfrs are consolidating. I don’t want to use a political analogy but it’s akin to Israel kept yelling to anyone that would listen “Iran nuclear is going to be a threat to everyone so everyone should banish Iran from the global community” whereas in reality, Iran nuclear is only a threat to Israel. Well, Marchionne is doing the same thing here, he’s been yelling at the top of his lungs about the car industry is going to implode unless everyone consolidate and “FCA is a willing partner” whereas in reality, it’s FCA (and a few others) that needs to be saved. The other car mfrs are doing OK for the most part and although they are always on the lookout for a good partnership or deal, FCA is neither.

  • avatar
    elimgarak

    I support a hostile M&A of FCAU and GM just for the drama and disruption that would ensue.

  • avatar
    bobman

    There’s so much news about this that it’s becoming boring. During Sergio’s time as head of Fiat and Chrysler and then FCA, the company has survived many challenges. There were VEBA, shister loans, the stupid know it all critics and the clueless Canadian politicians who are still wondering why they’re losing their auto manufacturing. All of them dealt with by a very confident Sergio. I don’t have the exact number but the stock price is up twentysomething percent this year. So WTF is the issue?

    This whole thing has been contrived by Sergio for the benefit of the unions. It’s better that they think that they’re dealing with someone who doesn’t give a damn whether FCA lives or dies. This is Sergio at his best. Sit back and watch it all happen.

  • avatar
    seanx37

    I fail to see why GM would want FCA. Jeep, sure. But what else does FCA do that GM doesn’t already do better? Wouldn’t a Hyundai/Kia hookup make more sense?

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      What exactly does GM do better? Their only income comes from Americans overextending their credit to buy pickups, and they are losing market share in that segment. The next downturn or rate hike will leave them with nothing at all.

      Everything else they offer is second-rate, and can only be moved by undercutting the competition. They’ve lost Europe, had to pull Chevrolet out of many international markets, are a weak third in China, have no luxury brand (Cadillac is behind Acura in the US!).

      I’m not saying that FCA is in the best of positions, but at least they’re spread-out. They are still strong in Europe, they are growing fast in the US, they have a clear and sensible luxury strategy (that may even work), they are solid in South America. Their weakness is China, but that may not be so bad if China takes a turn (it will eventually, but when?).

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    This would kill gm a second time. Fiat is a parasite. Really a worthless car concern.

    Chrysler should already be on Deathwatch for a 3rd time.

    Why would ANYONE merge with FCA when they can just get jeep in the bankruptcy and let the rest of the concern fall in the garbage can?

    Activist investors. Pffft. Is Kirk Kerkorian still alive? He’s probably interested….

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    I realize there are many fans of GM out there. I am not interested in picking a fight with you, or trying to undermine your love of the brand. I accept that it exists and respect your right to your opinions.

    That said, I want nothing to do with anything made by GM, for which I have nothing but contempt. How they manage to maintain their preeminent market share is a mystery to me. I am a highly satisfied FCA customer with 3 of their products in the family, but if GM gets their hands on them I’ll be going back to Japanese/Korean product. (Been burned once too many times by Ford.)

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      I think GM is making some good cars currently. Their 3.6 isn’t what the 3800 was (ie. they should still be using the 3800), but many of their cars are solid. I’m not someone who would’ve said that five years ago.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    Ms. Barra should’ve kept her pie hole shut to help GM stock prices.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • -Nate: ? Has anyone here looked at or purchased a Hertz vehicle ? . -Nate
  • Lie2me: Walmart will miss you :(
  • sgeffe: And wait until you get around to the front, where the sabre-toothed woodchuck grille awaits! Of course this...
  • teddyc73: Juicy? Really? Time to retire that word before it becomes as overused as “iconic”.
  • teddyc73: I’m going to do both…not wear a mask AND not buy this car.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber