Honda / GM Alliance ???

consolidate indycar engines to one manufacturer? Chevonda has a nice ring to it.   Acura to merge with Cadillac for LMDH domination?

In reply to classicJackets (FS) :

Like pres589 I'm with classicJackets here too; this deal actually makes a E36 M3load of sense when you realize what strength each company is bringing, ESPECIALLY GM with EVs. Chevy has sold the most second only to Tesla, and the Volt/Bolt batteries are beloved in the custom EV space because they have the highest discharge rates and can be run both liquid and air cooled, depending on what you're using for controls. Finally, inverters are expensive pieces of kit that are the most inefficient parts of an EV vehicle; it's not just cost savings here, but also a boon for Electrify America to compete with Tesla and keep them from becoming the defacto standard for American EV infrastructure.

It must be all about the Ridgeline. 

OHSCrifle said:

It must be all about the Ridgeline. 

Yeah, Chevy could use a pickup that doesn't hinge in the middle, making for a trampoline-like ride quality.

You have to give Honda credit.  They KNOW that most people who buy pickups are just minivan buyers who are too embarassed to buy a minivan.  So they made the ultimate minivan-pickup.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

OHSCrifle said:

It must be all about the Ridgeline. 

Yeah, Chevy could use a pickup that doesn't hinge in the middle, making for a trampoline-like ride quality.

And Honda already made that mistake once and apparently learned from it with the new generation of Ridgeline. I don't love most of Honda's exterior styling, but just about anyone could do better than whatever gm has done with their trucks in the last few years so there could be some improvement there too.

GM has failed before, and been bailed out by the government.

Is this Honda bailing them out?

In reply to CyberEric :

GM was unable to handle a recession after pouring all of their money into R&D to develop products for the future like the Volt.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Ok. I don’t care all that much why they failed. I mostly care that tax payer money was used to fix it.

My hope is that Honda will foot the bill/provide support, be it in R&D or whatever else, should GM find it necessary, rather than you and me unwillingly providing that support.

Early joint development efforts aren't hateful. Should be in Honda showrooms late February. 

CyberEric said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Ok. I don’t care all that much why they failed. I mostly care that tax payer money was used to fix it.

My hope is that Honda will foot the bill/provide support, be it in R&D or whatever else, should GM find it necessary, rather than you and me unwillingly providing that support.

Didn't gm pay all that money back ahead of schedule?

captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

 

Early joint development efforts aren't hateful. Should be in Honda showrooms late February. 

That somehow doesn't look any worse than either the current Camaro or Civic, but I'm exactly sure that means it's an improvement either. 

wvumtnbkr said:

CyberEric said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Ok. I don’t care all that much why they failed. I mostly care that tax payer money was used to fix it.

My hope is that Honda will foot the bill/provide support, be it in R&D or whatever else, should GM find it necessary, rather than you and me unwillingly providing that support.

Didn't gm pay all that money back ahead of schedule?

Hi wvumtnbkr,

In a word no, GM did not "pay all that money back".  However, they did fulfill all the terms of the loan and they did so well ahead of schedule.

Essentially, GM received 49.5 billion in cash and they paid back 6.7 billion of it.  The rest was to be recovered by the sale of GM stock the government took possession of as part of the loan deal.  13 billion was recovered during the new GM IPO, 2.1 billion was recovered by a GM preferred stock buy-back, and a 5.5 billion was recovered by a GM common stock buy-back.

27.3 billion of the 49.5 billion was paid back (55.15%)

This takes us from 2008 to 2013...after that, the government still held 113 million shares of GM stock so if GM's stock price got high enough ($125), theoretically, the remaining money could be recovered.  The highest stock price GM has achieved between 2013 and today is $45.88 which occurred on October 13th, 2017 (it closed last Friday at an even $30) or about a quarter of what would be needed.

I don't know how many shares the government still holds nor do I know what price they got for any shares they may have sold but I do know that they needed to get $125 per share and the tippy top was $45.88 so no, GM did not "pay all that money back".

I'm agnostic on the GM bail-out and even if I wasn't, GRM has a no politics policy so I wouldn't weigh in on the good thing to do / bad thing to do aspect.  My only contribution is the objective math and the objective math sez' no, GM did not "pay all that money back". 

When I first heard this news, I thought that Honda may have been the ones to reach out first about an alliance to get some BEV tech into their product portfolio. But now I'm not so sure, because GM is seemingly striking up another partnership where they basically trade their batteries for fuel cell tech. That makes it seem like GM is fairly motivated to spread costs of these batteries around a bit while also getting into the fuel cell game. Having both technologies might even allow them to spin off an electric car division which would surely excite Wall St.

STM317 said:

When I first heard this news, I thought that Honda may have been the ones to reach out first about an alliance to get some BEV tech into their product portfolio. But now I'm not so sure, because GM is seemingly striking up another partnership where they basically trade their batteries for fuel cell tech. That makes it seem like GM is fairly motivated to spread costs of these batteries around a bit while also getting into the fuel cell game. Having both technologies might even allow them to spin off an electric car division which would surely excite Wall St.

It's all about hedging for the future -  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/general-motors-takes-11percent-stake-and-2-billion-in-equity-in-electric-truck-maker-nikola-.html  by ensuring they have a hydrogen fuel cell truck and BEV truck, they have either path open depending on the way future winds blow.  Mid-heavy truck BEV still has big questions on towing, recharge rates, multiple chargers, etc when you get into the bigger sizes so this definitely helps clarify the vision.

Ford Motor Company, Toyota, and Hyundai are the most forward leaning transportation companies in the industry IMO. 

All three have begun upfront and in the background investment into no longer being a majority individual owned and driven car company in 80 years. GM and VW seem to not know how to go about doing it and are losing time to get key technology. The other automakers are just too small to risk that much capital in smart skateboards, drones, or powered wheelchair like things. 

GM is MASSIVE and their resources and impact on the economy are rather crucial. I read through the discussion on this thread about the buyout. It is a complex financial transaction that if taken in a vacuum it looks like a loss to the taxpayer. However, as with everything there are many interacting systems in place. GM is as big as 3M and GE and has just as large and deep supply chain. If GM failed, most of the US based supplier for the US automarket would have to shrink or disappear. The job loses would be large. Ford and Chrysler LLC would have been destabilized as their suppliers would not be able to adjust to only half the revenue once GM was gone or being restructured as something else. If Ford or Chrysler were allowed to buy GM then the monopoly would be undeniable. So the cost of unemployment, loss of income tax, and general market depression on top of the already falling economy is where to look to see if the autocompany bail out loans worked or not. Looking at one piece of the puzzle is just not going to get you to the finished picture.

The culture of Honda does have it's failings but I found suppliers mostly found the "RELATIONSHIP" to be great which is what the OP talks about. They once worked with one of my suppliers on an Accord roof panel sub assembly. The roof panel had a crease that their tooling created (someone clear as the asian supplier didn't have the crease). Honda crash tested a few and gave a thumbs up.  It is clearly visible if you know where to look (it has been a decade now so I don't remember which corner it was in anymore) and the supplier made roofs with creases under a temporary release from Honda for several months(years) until they and Honda figured out the problem and put in place a solution in the suppler's tooling. All the while Honda didn't resort to the GM and Chrysler tactics of slamming fists on tables, threats, demanding changes without data, and in general not helping to get to the solution. 

I had a few people I know that worked at Tesla as they started to ramp up. Despite all the rhetoric, if they didn't have a pre-existing Lotus chassis, pre established auto industry supply chain supported by the big three, there would be no "parts bin" of IP for vehicle parts, processes, and equipment for them to get past a kit car phase. And that took billions of capital investment which I still don't see stabilized for long term growth. When they have to fully retool their existing manufacturing plant to build the next generation Model S/etc. And they succeed at that, then I will see them as a viable car company. Trust me, I am rooting for them to succeed! Just as I am hoping that FCA-PSA succeed. Ford I think is already set on a good path. GM, is like a catamaran made of two titanic sized hulls, spread 50 miles apart. I hope they can make the right moves.

So all but the top three I mentioned I think have to work together to stay relevant. Honda and Mazda just couldn't afford to shift to batteries.

gearheadmb said:

93EXCivic said:

My question is why would Honda do that? GM ruins everything it touches.

How so?

Exhibit A:

Saturn