You barely beat me to that statement.
Folks, when the facts are in doubt, follow the paper/money trail.

But I do remember that when asked to present a 'plan' to congress they were told nope- 'do it over',more then once.So is the story accurate?
Remember its not a opinion piece.

MOST of the news outlets are opinion based upon what "story" they want to slant. There is very little honest reporting of actual facts.

GM will never recover as long as they are not able to be run like a real business.

There will just continue to be loud sucking sounds coming from them. (like loosing $5k per car)

Bill

The NY Times has been advocating the destruction of the domestic auto industry for years.

Combine that with clear left-leanings and it's no surprise that they think GM is doing better now...

They fail to take into account the public backlash against the company, which has helped drive sales to Ford.

They seem popular around my area. I presume they are leased or used as I cannot being the idiot who buys one brand new. Even at severe discount the depreciation is akin to setting a small bon fire of money.

I love my 2004. I don't doubt that they loose money - I couldnt have gotten a camry or accord or similar sized car for the price of my new 9-3 as it was equipped...

Saab used to be a very good little car company, selling safe cars that had good performance and were fun to drive. I owned a '73 99 EMS and it was great. Then I owned a '84 900 Turbo and it was almost as good.

But GM turned Saab from a car company into a division, and finally into just a brand -- sticking the Saab badge on Opels and Suburus. They turned it into a mediocre and unreliable car that was grossly overpriced -- mostly they were leased and not sold, and when the leases expired then a person could get a very good deal on a greatly-depreciated used Saab. But regrettably they had lost the technological edge that they had 20-25 years ago, when turbo Saabs were every bit as good as BMW 3-Series cars for about the same price. Now I don't know anyone who would choose a Saab instead of a BMW for the same price.

GM want Saab to die. It could just kill off the brand, but instead it tried to sell it first. Koenigssegg discovered, in time, that GM did not want the "new" Saab to compete against GM's remaining car divisions. So there were going to be limits on what technology Saab could use and where it could sell cars. The deck was stacked against Saab, GM wanted to make sure it could never be profitable.

I am sure the bailout covered the loss per car .

As painful as it is, I think you're probably right.

I hope GM makes it. But I still think they should break up into 3 seperate subidiaries and each better focus on their products.

1. GM Truck Division
2. GM Car Div.
3. GM Luxury Div.

GM trucks & Cars would be sold at the same dealers and the Luxury Div. would have it's own dealer network specifically charged to go after the Lexus/Mercedes market share.

JMHO.

My 1984 Saab 900S was a great, reliable, fun to drive vehicle. I replace one WP at ~ 155,000 miles and sold it running just fine at ~ 216,000 without any major repairs. Anything GM manages in the previous 30 years has been a disaster. That management philosophy seems to be fully in place today.