That 70's Show For GM

[Nbadan]

"AS GASOLINE prices surge to record highs, General Motors teeters on the verge of collapse with a credit rating one step above junk. This is hardly coincidence. GM has willfully ignored fundamental trends in technology and oil. To make matters worse, so has our government. U.S. security is threatened by rising dependence on oil and instability in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Our automakers and government have a brief window to adopt an aggressive strategy to push fuel-efficient vehicles, especially hybrids, or we risk yielding our destiny to outside forces.

Oil prices have risen sharply, yet GM stubbornly keeps making the wrong vehicles, losing market share to fuel-efficient, foreign-made vehicles that have caught the public imagination - the identical predicament GM found itself in three decades ago. GM had been warned in the early 1970s that oil prices would rise, but it refused to match the gas-sipping, high-quality competition from Toyota, Honda and other imports. GM fought the future and lost. In the 1990s, when oil prices again were low, many predicted that prices would rise within a decade, threatening our security. OPEC nations simply had (and still have) much more oil production capacity and reserves than non-OPEC nations. Population growth, industrialization and urbanization were, predictably, driving oil demand steadily up, especially in China and India. Also, U.S. demand was again rising steadily as the political will for tighter fuel-efficiency standards had ended with the low oil prices.

Back then, the Energy Department partnered with GM, Ford and Chrysler to speed the introduction of hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles. Ironically, the main result was to motivate the Japanese car companies to develop and introduce their own hybrids. GM walked away from hybrids as soon as it could - when the Bush administration came in. The result: GM, which had a technological lead in electric drives, let its No. 1 competitor, Toyota, achieve a stunning seven-year head start in what will likely be this century's primary drive train. GM was publicly criticizing hybrids as late as January 2004, and only recently announced a half-hearted effort to match Toyota. This miscalculation will be regarded as one of the biggest blunders in auto industry history.

GM stubbornly pursues hydrogen cars as its vehicle of the future, but such cars require multiple scientific breakthroughs and massive government subsides. They would reduce the freedom of American drivers by keeping them tethered to a small number of fueling stations dispensing expensive hydrogen fuel. Most independent analysts believe these cars are decades away."

EDIT

EV World (http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=8382)

Seems that American automakers didn't learn anything from the 70's oil crisis. Sales of American cars and SUV's are down across the board, while Japanese auto makers like Toyota chew up more of the available market.

[exstatic]

We are dominant and will always be dominant just because we are the USA. All is well!!! [/Clandestupid]

[Clandestino]

whatever... the american car market is bs. i drive a foreign suv myself.

[Useruser666]

Yes, there is a huge difference between a Ford built in Canada and a Toyota built in Canada.

[mookie2001]

good, i have an old chevy but i hate GM
those tahoe-making-layoffgiving-government-influencing-onstar*installing bastards

[Extra Stout]

The carmakers that did not invest in hybrids grossly underestimated the emotional appeal of those cars to people who want to feel like they are doing their part to save the environment.

From an economic standpoint, keeping everything else constant like the price of gas and driving habits, a hybrid will be more expensive to drive than a conventional car. A lot of the gas-mileage benefits evaporate when you take into account running the heater in the winter or the A/C in the summer, or driving up hills. A lot of hybrid junkies change their driving style to maximize their mileage (hypermiling), but that can be done with conventional vehicles as well.

But emotion and identity have a lot to do with people's vehicle choices. if practicality were the biggest factor, only people with six kids who need to tow boats would drive full-size SUV's.

You notice that Toyota and Honda have focused primarily on the upper end of the market for their hybrids. This is because their target demographics are wealthier folks: urban liberals who want to feel green, techno-junkies who love the gadgetry, and people who will pay for the convenience of going to the pump less often.

As for the idea that hybrids will dominate the market, I doubt it. I think people will just go for smaller cars and smaller engines first. Manufacturers will adjust engine tuning to get better mileage at the expense of peak horsepower. (Does a Honda Accord V-6 really need 240 hp??) Vehicles will go on a diet. Hybrid technology is expensive and cumbersome -- there's something like 42% more parts to a hybid drivetrain. I think 25 years from now, hybrids will be looked back upon fondly as a crude first step.

Europe has a lot of turbodiesels that get great mileage, but their emissions restrictions are looser than ours. If Europe tightens those restrictions to match the U.S., we might see more diesels over here -- assuming we build the capacity to produce more diesel (there's a shortage now), but no manufacturer is going to invest the money it would take just for the U.S. market, given that just 0.5% of cars sold here have diesel engines.

Manufacturers are working on HCCI technology to make gasoline engines work on the same cycle diesels do, but there's a lot of work to be done, and at best we're talking 2015 before a commercially viable engine could be available (they have a tendency to blow themselves apart right now).

And fuel cells are even further out, largely due to the lack of infrastructure, and big concerns about the environmental impacts.

[mookie2001]

You notice that Toyota and Honda have focused primarily on the upper end of the market for their hybrids. This is because their target demographics are wealthier folks: urban liberals who want to feel green,


more knowledge

liberals are wealthy and drive hybrids, but not on vacation because they hate vacations

i guess conservatives are so poor they have to drive tahoes... on vacations because they love vacations

[Extra Stout]

As for GM's strategy, they appear to be heading directly into the iceberg. They and Ford have been strugglig of late because sales of their highest-margin vehicles, full-size trucks and SUV's, have been slumping. From what I read, analysts are saying this is NOT just because of the price of gas, because the market for Tahoes and Surburbans is largely among people wealthy enough that gas prices are just an annoyance.

However, there is the psychological irritation of paying so much at the pump, and the uncertainty of how much higher prices might go. Nevertheless, the biggest reason for the shift is the increasing supply of vehicles that provide the SUV "image," but with more practicality and carlike handing. Consumers like these vehicles. The emergence of sport wagons and sporty hatchbacks is gradually changing the "mommy-mobile" or "econobox" image of those vehicles.

Ford has jumped on this wave with vehicles like the Freestyle, and an upcoming crossover based upon the Mazda6 platform. DaimlerChrysler has enjoyed success with the PT Cruiser and the Dodge Magnum wagon, and the Neon replacement, the Caliber, will be styled like a small SUV. Toyota started this trend with the Camry-based Highlander and Lexus RX.

GM is convinced that the reason for the soft demand on the big truck barges is just because the product is aging, and that their all-new 2007 full-size SUV's and trucks will reinvigorate the market. They've actually diverted development money from car and crossover platforms in order to get the new Silverados and Tahoes to market more quickly. Given the current market, this sounds insane and suicidal.

However, it may be a chance that GM has no choice but to take. They have the technical ability to build smaller, practical vehicles -- look at the well-executed Chevrolet Equinox on the Theta platform -- but they need their highest-margin vehicles to sell well because their fixed-cost structure puts them at an enormous disadvantage. Because they were once so large, and their labor deals with UAW so generous, they currently have 2 retirees on pension for every current employee, and are paying 25% more per retiree and employee for health care than their competitors, resulting in a $1500 hit for every vehicle sold at current volumes. If they shrink, these fixed costs don't go away. If they stay the current size, they can't spend enough on R&D to get fresh product to the dealers quickly enough. GM spends less than half as much on R&D as Toyota in the North American market, yet sells 89 different vehicles here to Toytoa's 26.

Right now, their health care liabilites alone exceed the entire market capitalization of GM. Chapter 11 is inevitable, and only their substantial cash reserves prevent it from happening in the short term. If their 2007 pickup/SUV launch falls flat, as is very likely, I predict they'll be bankrupt by 2009 at the latest.

[Clandestino]

there retirement sounds like our social security!

[Extra Stout]

more knowledge

liberals are wealthy and drive hybrids, but not on vacation because they hate vacations

i guess conservatives are so poor they have to drive tahoes... on vacations because they love vacationsOh, fuck you. What I wrote is over your head.

Wealthy liberals place a higher priority on "social responsibility" than wealthy conservatives, and these vehicles make them think they are doing their part, even if the actual benefit to the environment isn't that great depending on how they are driven. A Honda Accord V-6 will typically get 22 mpg in mixed driving. A Honda Accord hybrid with the A/C on full-blast and the driver gunning it through traffic will get 24 mpg. Whoopty-doo. And do you think those EV1's the Hollywood crowd was leasing were at all practical?

[Extra Stout]

there retirement sounds like our social security!Well, GM executives might start sounding like hardcore liberal Democrats really soon. Nationalized health care is one of the few ways to get them out of this jam.

[Clandestino]

gm has been in trouble for a long time though.. this again, is nothing new from dan. you could easily shit wasn't going well, with their gmac smart notes(bonds), they have had very high rates lately. plus gm's stock has dropped for a long time.

dan, again, with old news...

[mookie2001]

hollywood drives more hummers escalades and g-wagons than anyone.
i dont see why people constantly scoff "liberals" for looking out for the dam enviornment, the fucking ENVIORNMENT!!, thats the lamest way to put people down, calling people treehuggers and shit, i dont see how the enviornment is politcal issue, this should be one issue that everyone agrees on

[Clandestino]

but you can't even get a majority of scientists to agree on environmental issues and causes...

[Useruser666]

hollywood drives more hummers escalades and g-wagons than anyone.
i dont see why people constantly scoff "liberals" for looking out for the dam enviornment, the fucking ENVIORNMENT!!, thats the lamest way to put people down, calling people treehuggers and shit, i dont see how the enviornment is politcal issue, this should be one issue that everyone agrees on

I don't think that is what he was saying. I think the term "poser" applies here.

[Extra Stout]

gm has been in trouble for a long time though.. this again, is nothing new from dan. you could easily shit wasn't going well, with their gmac smart notes(bonds), they have had very high rates lately. plus gm's stock has dropped for a long time.

dan, again, with old news...JD Power predicts that hybrids will peak with 3% of the market in 2011. That's not exactly the "century's primary drive train."

And if all people cared about was gas mileage, hey, GM's 3.5L pushrod V6 gets 24/35 and 200 hp for the same cost as most competitors' 4-cylinders. But that's still not what sells cars.

GM suffers because of their unsustainable fixed costs, which make it impossible to upgrade their products as quickly as their competitors, and because of the negative image they created for themselves in the 1970's and 1980's, when their vehicles were unreliable poorly built primitive garbage that left their customers stranded on the road, out thousands of dollars.

[Clandestino]

personally, i wouldn't buy a gm car or truck.

[Extra Stout]

hollywood drives more hummers escalades and g-wagons than anyone.
i dont see why people constantly scoff "liberals" for looking out for the dam enviornment, the fucking ENVIORNMENT!!, thats the lamest way to put people down, calling people treehuggers and shit, i dont see how the enviornment is politcal issue, this should be one issue that everyone agrees onI wasn't saying it was bad that they care about the environment. But marketing usually has nothing to do with reality, and what I'm saying is that the hybrids out there have more to do with marketing to people who care about the environment and want to do their part, than actually helping the environment.

Toyota, and Honda especially, make it a priority to put out ULEV and SULEV vehicles, not just because they are wonderful, altruistic people, but because it gives them an attractive image to the kind of customer they would like to buy their cars.

These hybrids also serve as a kind of "halo" car for those who won't actually buy them, but will think these companies must be responsible citizens and therefore will visit their showrooms.

[mookie2001]

im speaking in general "liberals" are put down for helping the enviornment, always called wackos and hippies, treehuggers...scoffed for BELIEVING in global warming like its made up. is the opposite of wanting to help the enviornment, NOT wanting to ? i dont get it
it is cliche- but this is the only earth we have





the V6 accord was made to show people that hybrids can be fast, those bitches are fast, the gas mileage is not that great, its experimenting with the technology the mileage alot less than a regular 4 cyl car of anykind

even if they dont give a shit about the earth, cant they buy hybrids because theyre cheap bastards who like saving money on gas without being labled as posers, thats mostly why id buy , not to save the planet but to save gas

[Clandestino]

im speaking in general "liberals" are put down for helping the enviornment, always called wackos and hippies, treehuggers...scoffed for BELIEVING in global warming like its made up. is the opposite of wanting to help the enviornment, NOT wanting to ? i dont get it
it is cliche- but this is the only earth we have

you can't even get a majority of scientists to agree on global warming. some say it is happening bc of shit humans are doing, others say it isn't...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

but you can't even get a majority of scientists to agree on environmental issues and causes...


Incorrect. Environmental issues??? Dude I'm still in college and using the basic ecological principles I've learned it would take a Scientist on crack not to agree on the same basic environmental issue. I'd like proof of this.

Causes? Ok....But the issues, they do not disagree on.


Even the scientists who don't beleive in "Global warming" still agree to the fact that the earth is warming up. They disagree on the causes not the issues.

Some say its a regular 10000 year cycle of the earth, some say its the CFC's, etc. The point is you can't say scientists, people who have devoted their entire lives to science, can possibly disagree about issues.

Even the scientist that does not believe global warming is caused by CFCs will admit that Carbon Dioxide, Water vapor, and Methane gas are green house gases that lock re-radiated heat into the earth like a blanket.

It's a fundamental property of earth responsible for all life.

If you think they disagree about this youre wrong.

So what is the harm in trying to limit our cfc's, trying to do things we know CAN have an adverse effect on the environment?

[Extra Stout]

im speaking in general "liberals" are put down for helping the enviornment, always called wackos and hippies, treehuggers...scoffed for BELIEVING in global warming like its made up. is the opposite of wanting to help the enviornment, NOT wanting to ? i dont get it
it is cliche- but this is the only earth we haveI understand your complaint, but since I wasn't making that argument, I don't see why you feel the need to go off on me. Right-wingers aren't clones.

While I think science must be taken seriously, I also understand that people have agendas. Many distrust the alarmist cries about global warming because 30 years ago many of the same people were crying about global cooling. There's a lot of doomsday rhetoric about the effects of global warming, but from what I can tell the biggest problem comes if it gets hot enough that the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica melt. For most of Earth's history, the earth has been much hotter than now, and there have been no ice caps, and therefore what we today call "the Midwest" typically has been a shallow ocean. It's why you find marine fossils around San Antonio all the time. Obviously, if most settlements below elevation 1000 in the world were submerged, well then I hope Noah shows up with his ark.

But we're not on a pace to get that hot, and all scientists can tell us is what *might* have to happen to get that hot, what we're talking about is changes in weather patterns, mostly. Well, 500 years ago the Gulf Stream pointed at Spain and not England, so it's not as if these changes are unprecedented. Also, nobody knows to what degree human activity is causing these changes, given that we just passed a 10,000-year solar maximum and that we're still coming out of the last ice age.

So some of the scoffing comes because leftie rhetoric is not based in fact. On the other hand, clearly a lot of righties are sticking their head in the sand, and then there are also the lunatic theocrats who think environmentalism doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back in 15 years anyway.

[Extra Stout]

even if they dont give a shit about the earth, cant they buy hybrids because theyre cheap bastards who like saving money on gas without being labled as posers, thats mostly why id buy , not to save the planet but to save gasIf somebody is buying a hybrid because they think it's cheaper, then they are horribly misinformed. Read what I posted earlier. The cost of ownership with a hybrid is much higher, because even with $2.50 gas, you have to drive the car like 150,000 miles before your gas savings equal the extra you paid to get the hybrid.

You also have a vehicle whose powertrain is much more complex and likelier to have problems than a conventional one from the same manufacturer.

[mookie2001]

a civic hybrid or a prius is not more expensive than a tahoe or a yukon or a suburban, the 3 most popular in texas

[Cant_Be_Faded]

the solution is for us to all use SMARTCARS dammit

ive been saying this for decades

the only problem is that with every neo conservative hooking up his 5 foot 1 wife with a Tahoe, people that drive smart cars in america will be deathly afraid to get out of the garage. The tahoe could smash into a smartcar and not even need to get a carwash afterwards.

sad.

[mookie2001]

ive been saying this for decades



ROFL

i dont know any hybrids with OnStar* either

[Clandestino]

the solution is for us to all use SMARTCARS dammit

ive been saying this for decades

the only problem is that with every neo conservative hooking up his 5 foot 1 wife with a Tahoe, people that drive smart cars in america will be deathly afraid to get out of the garage. The tahoe could smash into a smartcar and not even need to get a carwash afterwards.

sad.

smartcars suck...

[Extra Stout]

a civic hybrid or a prius is not more expensive than a tahoe or a yukon or a suburban, the 3 most popular in texasThat is a fallacy. The appropriate comparison would be a Civic hybrid with a conventional Civic, or a Prius with a 4-cylinder Camry.

I do not dispute that purchasing smaller vehicles with smaller engines would be a more economical decision for many consumers. In fact, I stated in my first post in this thread that I believed the trend toward smaller vehicles with smaller engines would be stronger than the switch to hybrids. I encourage you actually to read my posts before you respond to them.

[mookie2001]

well naturally a hybrid is more expensive by like 2 g's plus you get a TAX BREAK worth almost the full amount

im saying 90% of people who drive tahoes yukons suburbans and escalades have ZERO use for them at all, and 90% of tahoes i see have a small WF driving alone
the fact is thats their right BUT
you just said it would be cheaper for those people to buy a hybrid, thats what i meant and im right

[Extra Stout]

well naturally a hybrid is more expensive by like 2 g's plus you get a TAX BREAK worth almost the full amount You still don't come out ahead. But some people are willing to pay the premium to feel environmentally conscious or to drive the "state-of-the-art." And a tax deduction is not the same as a tax credit. If you have to worry about the cost of gas, you're probably not in a high tax bracket to begin with, so you're only saving a few hundred in taxes. Or, you have a lot of kids or something, so a sedan, hybrid or not, isn't very practical.


im saying 90% of people who drive tahoes yukons suburbans and escalades have ZERO use for them at all, and 90% of tahoes i see have a small WF driving alone
the fact is thats their right BUT
you just said it would be cheaper for those people to buy a hybrid, thats what i meant and im rightYes, it would be cheaper to have a compact hybrid than a large SUV. It would be even cheaper to have a conventional compact.

[Extra Stout]

The underlying point is, back in the '90s, people could drive 5500 lb. trucks with 330 hp alone to fetch groceries without suffering any real consequences. Now, it puts some strain on the budget, so people's priorities likely will shift from being urban warriors to driving around in more practical and efficient packaging. THAT, and not hybrid technology, is what will raise average fuel economy in this country.

[Useruser666]

Did you leave out a few "n't"s or "not"s?

Some things to consider:

The tax breaks on hybrids DO NOT make up the entire difference in their cost compared to a regular vehicle.

2005 Honda Accord
Hybrid 4dr Sedan (3.0L 6cyl gas/electric hybrid 5A) $30,655

2005 Honda Accord
LX V-6 4dr Sedan (3.0L 6cyl 5A) $22,665

That is an $8,000 difference! The hybrid trim style is the same as the LX style according to www.edmunds.com . Now I'm not sure how you can make that up in taxes, but you just don't get that much back.

Second is the actual milage issue.

The regular Accord gets 21 mpg / 30 mpg.

The hybrid gets 29 mpg / 37 mpg.

So that savings can be up to 8 mpg under ideal conditions.

If you drive 12,000 miles a year that's ~572 gallons a year. 572 gallons x $2.20 = $1,258.50 for years worth of gas.

12,000 / 29 = ~414 gallons for a year for the hybrid. That's $910.80 in gas for the year with the hybrid.

This gives you a savings of $347.70 for one year of average driving. Now considering the hybrid costs $8,000 more than the conventional Accord, you would have to drive the hybrid for 23 years to actually see a savings at the gas pump.

Even if we would say that there is $4,000 tax break for buying the hybrid, that still leaves 11.5 years before we would experience any savings. This doesn't include any additional costs that are possible with the ownership of a hybrid vehicle.

I think it is much more economical to simply drive in a more eco friendly manner, or add less expensive after market parts that can increase fuel efficiency of most vehicles, while having low up front costs.

It is very possible to get a Tahoe up to 21 and 24 with about $700 worth of add ons.

[Clandestino]

and i think some have already mentioned that hybrid is going to cost a shitload to fix!

[mookie2001]

well the accord hybrid is a joke like i said it was a test of the technology and to show people that "hybrids" can be fast, its a performance car

im talking about the prius by toyota and the civic hybrid by honda
the 2 most popular hybrids








It is very possible to get a Tahoe up to 21 and 24 with about $700 worth of add ons.

no you cannot, no way in hell, its not even close to possible
exaust
intake/filter
powerchip
is all you can do an that shit costs WAY more than 7 bills

[Useruser666]

well the accord hybrid is a joke like i said it was a test of the technology and to show people that "hybrids" can be fast, its a performance car

im talking about the prius by toyota and the civic hybrid by honda
the 2 most popular hybrids








no you cannot, no way in hell, its not even close to possible
exaust
intake/filter
powerchip
is all you can do an that shit costs WAY more than 7 bills

You can get a Tahoeto those figures. I have seen it done and run on a dyno.

The most important thing about getting good milage is how you drive. The faster you go over 60 mph, the lower your mpg will be.

The Prius is not a very good hybrid vehicle. It is severly lacking in so many ways it's not even funny. The Civic may get better numbers, but it is smaller than the Accord.

2005 Honda Civic
Hybrid 4dr Sedan (1.3L 4cyl gas/electric hybrid CVT) $21,415 48/47 mpg

2005 Honda Civic
EX Special Edition 4dr Sedan (1.7L 4cyl 4A) $17,980 31/38 mpg

So driving a Hybriid Civic vs. a regular Civic you can save anywhere from 9-17 mpg.

12,000 a year.

12,000/31 = 388 gallons a year x $2.20 = $853.60 a year
12,000/48 = 250 gallons a year x $2.20 = $550.00 a year

Difference = $303.60 a year.

Difference in "upfront" cost = $3425.00

$3425.00 / $303.60 = ~11.3 years till break even.

There is also the 80,000 mile battery replacement warranty limit. That can be an added cost down the road.

[exstatic]

Does anyone remember the Honda CRX hf models from the mid to late 80s? Those fuckers got like 50+mpg. Honda just need to remanufacture those.

[DrRich]

Does anyone remember the Honda CRX hf models from the mid to late 80s? Those fuckers got like 50+mpg. Honda just need to remanufacture those.

Man, those were the days!! I remeber my 7 yr old would just lay down in the back!!! :elephant

[scott]

Europe has a lot of turbodiesels that get great mileage, but their emissions restrictions are looser than ours. If Europe tightens those restrictions to match the U.S., we might see more diesels over here -- assuming we build the capacity to produce more diesel (there's a shortage now), but no manufacturer is going to invest the money it would take just for the U.S. market, given that just 0.5% of cars sold here have diesel engines.


Diesel's are much cleaner than used to be, and will get even cleaner in the very near future. Sulfur restrictions kick in this summer, and will eventually take on-road diesel down to 15 ppm sulfur.

Diesel's (not talking about monster trucks) are a smart approach - even considering diesel's current premium to gasoline. I believe VW is the only mainstream manufacturer in the US to offer one though (the Jetta TDI).

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Does anyone remember the Honda CRX hf models from the mid to late 80s? Those fuckers got like 50+mpg. Honda just need to remanufacture those.


LOL someone at my high school used to drive one of those, they used to...


haha this kid at my school had a crx

people fucked with it daily

4 or 5 people would pick up his car and move it or put it on the football field or something lol

oh n/m you beat me to it.

one time they put it on a cement block so he couldnt drive off with it

[Useruser666]

For around $4,000 you can get a propane retro fit kit for most full size SUVs and pickups. Then you can run on regular gas or propane. It's more flexable than a propane only vehicle.

[Clandestino]

in money magazine, they showed how you can buy a kit for your diesel car to run on old grease from restaurants.

[The Ressurrected One]

in money magazine, they showed how you can buy a kit for your diesel car to run on old grease from restaurants.
Yeah, but it leads to overeating because your car smells like McDonalds and you're always hungry.

[Clandestino]

Yeah, but it leads to overeating because your car smells like McDonalds and you're always hungry.

LOL! but they did say, your car's exhaust smells like wherever you go the oil from! just think if you got the oil from long john silvers! :vomit

[Nbadan]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Standard & Poor's cut General Motors Corp.'s debt ratings to junk status on Thursday in a move that will reduce the automaker's avenues for raising funds as it struggles with global competition and rising healthcare costs. <SNIP>

The cut, which includes GM's finance arm General Motors Acceptance Corp., could cause GM's borrowing costs to rise. Investors have dreaded a GM cut to junk for fear it may cause turmoil in both the high-grade and junk markets. Investment funds ineligible to hold junk bonds could be forced to sell billions of dollars of GM debt.<SNIP>

More...

Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-05-05T165725Z_01_N05531564_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESS-AUTOS-GM-JUNK-DC.XML)

What a coincidence for GM, now their bond ratings match their vehicles!