GM and Ford Rumored Alliance

[mustang84]

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/18/breakin...mored-alliance/

Automotive News reported early this morning that senior executives within Ford and GM have explored the possibility of an alliance, even a merger, in the near future.

[Northstar]

This would be interesting, but I don't see it happening. It's much easier to manage two huge companies than one titanic company. Also, GM wouldn't want to inherit more problems when they're finally starting to get things turned around, and Ford probably wouldn't want the problems that GM has left to fix.

I could see them working on more stuff for powertrains though, such as the 6-speed automatic.

[Camino LS6]

A limited alliance could help both, but a full merger scares the crap out of me.

[andy82471]

A full merger is a bad idea. Too much product overlap plus GM itself is just coming out of a major crisis. They don't need the headache of FMC and all its issues. Hope it doesn't happen. FORD needs to look elsewhere for salvation.

[Mgoblue2]

I agree merger is a bad idea, but working together on powertrains and tranny's is a good thing hopefully!! But can you image the waste you would with these two hugh companies merging!! And product overlay, which would last the F150 or Silverado??

[red]

With that merger you'd have a whole new list of problems on top of the existing ones. Nice to see that the execs are looking at risky options, though.

[NOS2006]

A full merger would be pointless. I'm not sure Ford has anything to give GM that GM doesn't already have or realize.

Plus, Mustang vs. Camaro would be pointless.

[Cadillacfan]

I really hope this won't happen. GM's still in recovery mode and you just know that if any merger were to happen, they'd be the one footing the bill. It would kind of be like the Daimler-Chrysler merger since GM is a good deal larger then Ford.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Cadillacfan

[Dragon]

maybe some minor tech sharing, ie hybrid drives, tranny's would be beneficial, but thast about it IMO

[Drew Dowdell]

maybe some minor tech sharing, ie hybrid drives, tranny's would be beneficial, but thast about it IMO

194881[/snapback]

This is the only tranny we should get from Ford.... leave those up to GM

[toesuf94]

This would be one of the actual signs of the Apocalypse...the seventh is Toyota making a product that is actually NOT an appliance but an actually desirable passionate product...

Please GM - do not merge - work together on the future of Autos and in gaining world marketshare - but stay away from a joint boardroom.

[Camino LS6]

GM and FMC could benefit from working together politically rather than just on tech items. Together, they could apply huge pressure on elected officials, the UAW, suppliers, health care reform, trade issues, shipping, US auto industry promotion/PR, charity events, regulatory issues of all kinds, etc.

[ehaase]

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../309180001/1128

BEST OF EDWARD LAPHAM

Ed called it 17 days ago

9/1/2006 column: Coming soon: The hookup of the century!

Edward Lapham | |

Automotive News | 6:00 am, September 18, 2006

Ford and GM sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

Yuck! Ptooey!

I know that may sound like an unnatural act. But sooner or later -- probably sooner -- General Motors and Ford will need to consider hooking up.

It would be more like an arranged marriage than a passionate liaison. And for a while, it may seem like two drunks trying to hold each other up as they stumble out of a Las Vegas wedding chapel.

But, face it, all the wooing and petting with charming suitors from faraway lands won't amount to much more than a summer romance; nor should they if they aren't in the best interests of all stakeholders.

An alliance would allow GM and Ford to stop beating each other bloody in North America and would create a powerhouse that could compete from a position of strength globally by sharing components, innovations and resources.

Of course, as with any marriage, there will be issues.

The old fear about creating a leviathan that will dominate the market doesn't loom as large anymore, given the strength of automakers from overseas that establish most of the price points. Between them, Ford and GM control less than 45 percent of the U.S. market.

Yes, there would be way too many brands. Whenever you combine households, you need to dispose of stuff.

Of course, you'd start by selling Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover and probably Volvo rather than Saab because Saab shares more with other GM brands than Volvo does with Ford brands.

In the rest of the world, you ought to be able to look for ways to share platforms and reduce costs without major changes to the brand lineup.

But in North America, you'd want to ditch some or all of Lincoln, Mercury, Buick and Pontiac. That leaves the Ford vs. Chevy puzzle.

One solution would be to let Ford be the rock-ribbed, all-American brand and move Chevy downmarket to compete with the entry-level Korean and Chinese brands with Daewoo-based vehicles, hopefully built in North American factories. After all, that is the way the Chevy brand is heading in Europe and Asia.

There will need to be big-time buy-in from the stakeholders, especially the UAW.

There also may need to be federal legislation that makes it easier to do what needs to be done. But that shouldn't be a problem if the Democrats capture control of Congress in November.

The tricky part could be getting President Bush to sign the bill. But jawboning by Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., might convince him that it's a matter of national security.

Why? Manzullo chairs the House Committee on Small Business, which issued a 25-page report in March linking the need to protect the traditional auto supply base in the United States with maintaining the defense industry's supply base because the two overlap.

I can almost hear the logic of it now:

We need to keep our defense suppliers strong, Mr. President, so we can fight the war on terror. What more logical way to protect the defense industry's supply base against outsourcing or a foreign takeover than to make sure U.S. automakers remain strong and free?

Still don't like the idea of a GM-Ford alliance?

OK, it's not ideal. But merging two domestic competitors isn't a new idea.

Don't forget that Chrysler Corp. bought American Motors -- which was itself a consolidation of feeble U.S. companies -- before Daimler-Benz grabbed Chrysler. In France, Peugeot and Citroen formed PSA. In Korea, Hyundai got Kia. In Germany, Porsche owns about a quarter of the Volkswagen group and its various brands.

Sometimes, hooking up domestic competitors is just doing what comes naturally.

You may e-mail Edward Lapham at [email protected]

[PurdueGuy]

Cooperation - definately

Merger - no, terrible.

[hyperv6]

I don't know the proper legal term but it would go no farther than a co op.

They would share some componets and buying from shared vendors to save money. Also I would see them sharing in things other than just trannys like AC/ Heating systems power steering systems etc. Air bag systems Anything that could be shared and save money.

Buy in bigger numbers and save more money on things unseen by the public.

Neddless to say we are safe from having Bill Ford and other Family calling any shots at GM.

[LastMercury]

Cooperation - definately

Merger - no, terrible.

194912[/snapback]

I agree. The 2 companies could do a lot to help each other without merging.

[Chicagoland]

This is being overblown. Headlines scream 'merger rumor' and it was just some talks, big deal. Ford ro GM will go with a foriegn partner before hooking up.

[Lexcar14]

Why is everyone convinced this wouldn't past anti-trust? 30 years ago, that would be the case, but the car market is so fragmented that even Ford and GM together wouldn't control half of the market. The Japanese, Koreans and Europeans still would control more of the American market. Also you have to remember that the Bush admin. is allowing all mergers to go forth pretty much. If AT&T can swallow up BellSouth and re-create another monopoly just about, then Ford and GM is nothing.

Ford and GM may not happen for many reasons, but anti-trust won't be one of the reasons stopping them.

[dminick]

In order to stay competitive, two domestic competitors combine to create a 'powerhouse' that will have more resources, product than anyone. Of couse this is all done to keep the 'foreigners' from acquiring one of the domestics.

Oh.. wait .. this is a quote from the merger of Britians two largest auto makers.. 1968... BMC & Leyland....

Seems that one worked out well.....

[CARBIZ]

I am glad that I am not the only one concerned about the greater national security issue. The "arsenal of democracy" can only be an arsenal if the manufacturing base is domestically controlled.

Otherwise, the next President may have to go to the Japanese Prime Minister to beg permission to commandeer Japanese-owned factories in North America to build tanks and weapons. Won't that be sobering?

As to the merger rumours, I don't see it yet. The Japanese companies have been cooperating with each other for decades. Long ago they decided the real battle zone wasn't with their domestic market (puny) but, rather, was in North America where the real money was to be made.

Anti-Trust is a non-starter. If GM/Ford don't reverse their current free-fall market share drop, then a merger may look promising, but as I said, I don't see it - YET.

[Sixty8panther]

A limited alliance could help both, but a full merger scares the crap out of me.

194833[/snapback]

Yes & yes.

Like I keep saying, it's not Chevy vs. Ford anymore it's

us (big 3) vs. the imports, esp. the Japanese.

[andy82471]

I am glad that I am not the only one concerned about the greater national security issue.  The "arsenal of democracy" can only be an arsenal if the manufacturing base is domestically controlled.

  Otherwise, the next President may have to go to the Japanese Prime Minister to beg permission to commandeer Japanese-owned factories in North America to build tanks and weapons.  Won't that be sobering?

  As to the merger rumours, I don't see it yet.  The Japanese companies have been cooperating with each other for decades.  Long ago they decided the real battle zone wasn't with their domestic market (puny) but, rather, was in North America where the real money was to be made.

  Anti-Trust is  a non-starter.  If GM/Ford don't reverse their current free-fall market share drop, then a merger may look promising, but as I said, I don't see it - YET.

195419[/snapback]

Actually, you are not that far off. While most of the military contracts still go to domestic companies, a lot of the sub contracters working for them are Japanese. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the next Marine-1 helicopter will be made by FRENCH manufacterer Dassault.

[Camino LS6]

The Fbodfather has posted elsewhere that this won't happen.

[GEESIXER]

GM and Ford may not be enemies and longer but they certainly are not old chumsready to give eachother the shirts off their back to help one another,

they may team up for something like a 6-speed tranny, but as far as building cars together. NO