- President Obama drove the 2011 Chevrolet Volt on Friday.
- The short drive took place during a visit to the GM Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant.
- Obama also visited a Chrysler plant in Detroit earlier in the day.
HAMTRAMCK, Michigan — In a major public relations coup for General Motors, President Obama on Friday took a brief test-drive in a 2011 Chevrolet Volt and said it was "pretty smooth." He also gushed about the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee during a visit to a Chrysler plant in Detroit earlier in the day.
GM described the Volt journey as "the shortest of test-drives — about 40 feet."
"The impromptu drive occurred after consultations among the Secret Service and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who said he hoped the Volt had an airbag," said a GM statement issued on Friday.
It was the second photo op featuring Obama and the Volt. He sat in a Volt on July 15 during a visit to a battery supplier in Holland, Michigan.
Obama's sweep through the Motor City on Friday included a look at the redesigned Grand Cherokee. Chrysler and GM went through government-led bankruptcies last year, with the government plowing $85 billion into the domestic auto industry to prevent a devastating meltdown. Gibbs confirmed the total amount in a press briefing at the White House on Thursday, following the release of a government report on the state of the auto industry. Some critics now call GM "Government Motors" because of the federal bailout.
At the Chrysler plant, Obama said: "Before I make my remarks, I've got to disclose, I'm a little biased here because the first new car that I ever bought was a Grand Cherokee. Up until that point I had had some old, beat-up used cars. They were not state of the art. I've got to tell you, when I sat in this car, this is a better car. This is a state-of-the-art car. This is a world-class car right here."
Inside Line says: It's a love fest in Detroit among Chrysler, GM and the new salesman in chief. — Anita Lienert, Correspondent
Add A Comment »
mklrivowner says:
10:11 AM, 08/03/2010
beermagazine,
GM paid the loans with money from the initial fund and the interest another TARP fund had earned in interest. Furthermore. GM has not bought back any of the stock sold to the government. In fact, I believe they had shifted more stock onto the government's shoulders to help reduce their "debt".
Now that that's straigtened out, I do believe that GM is turning things around, building high-quality cars that will sell. And I believe there is a lot more to come.
ferenc says:
11:08 PM, 08/02/2010
you had too much beer to drink if you believe everything gm says. let them prove it by building great reliable cars at a fair price,
beermagazine says:
11:44 AM, 08/02/2010
Man some of you people are politically F'd up.
First of LOTS of companies file Bankrupcy and continue to do business. That's why it was invented.
Second, I am 99% sure I read that GM repaid all of the debt early. Lots of the loans were for credit, since the majority of people buy cars with a loan and if you weren't aware there were no loans at that time. No loans = no sales = no money.
All big business has some tie in with governement in some way. Hell if you buy foreign cars most of them are governement subsidized. Welcome to earth.
church123 says:
09:43 AM, 08/02/2010
And failure should be punished. You fail, you lose. A proper and _legal_ bankruptcy of GM would not have simply resulted in the disappearance of the entire GM portfolio, factories and jobs. Those are the things that had worth and would have been broken up, purchased and repurposed by one or more investor groups or competing companies. Different strategies would have been tried, new management teams installed, contracts renegotiated, etc. The cream would have risen to the top.
Instead, we changed the board and some of the executive management, installed managers selected by people with no automotive experience, and made absolutely no meaningful changes in the union contracts, all while screwing the shareholders. The bailout of GM was political in the extreme.
GM failed and should have suffered the consequences. All the bailout did was prolong the pain and spread the suffering to the rest of the country that didn't make the same bad decisions.
"GM's board, executive management, line management, and workers all failed. In an ideal world, they would all have done the right thing. They didn't. The decision was made to keep several hundred thousand jobs and hope for a similar scenario to Chrysler's resurrection in the late 70s. At this stage, to NOT promote U.S. jobs and industry makes no sense.
Ford is to be commended (and I have done so with several purchases over the years), but they were not going to replace those jobs in a GM failure scenario. I have no problem with using the bully pulpit to help our companies and our workers. "
qdp says:
08:31 AM, 08/02/2010
Even though Volt still remains a ghost car, GM has been repeatedly using it as GM hi-tech-greenie-image teaser and now is trying to use Volt to boost upcoming GM's junk IPO issurance. Obama might unduly get the hit resulting from the possible failure of Volt's lousy market performance.
stingray454 says:
06:18 AM, 08/02/2010
"carpaul1 says:
So loss of Government Motors to China will happen. At the end, it may be a good thing, as the shift to a more sophisticated Chinese customer taste in autos compared to redneck Midwest boys"
@carpaul1 - you have NO idea what you're talking about. More sophisticated Chinese taste? LMAO. Go visit China, observe, and report back here when you realize how wrong you are. You've got it completely backwards.
tbone85 says:
07:12 PM, 08/01/2010
"Never forget that GM is a failed company that would not exist save for a bailout by the Feds. By promoting it, you do a disservice to all the good companies who managed to get it right. Ford continues to be the one who is most screwed in this whole scenario."
GM's board, executive management, line management, and workers all failed. In an ideal world, they would all have done the right thing. They didn't. The decision was made to keep several hundred thousand jobs and hope for a similar scenario to Chrysler's resurrection in the late 70s. At this stage, to NOT promote U.S. jobs and industry makes no sense.
Ford is to be commended (and I have done so with several purchases over the years), but they were not going to replace those jobs in a GM failure scenario. I have no problem with using the bully pulpit to help our companies and our workers.
carpaul1 says:
05:45 PM, 08/01/2010
Soon Government Motors will try to sell its stake in GM and recoup its investment. At that point in time, the only people with money to give our government back its investment, are the Chinese. It is a perfect fit. GM market share in China is increasing, and they have good reputation there.
Years of selling junk in the US, mistake after mistake relative to marketing strategies, whether investing billions into Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer, Saab, Olds, or rebadging and devaluing Caddy and Buick and Chevy, and staying with SUVs and Trucks at expense of cars, means GM will NEVER be a real player in US market any longer. Sad to say, with the downfall of GM, the strength of US manufacturing, and associated prowess in a mechanical technological world, has also gone down to sad second world tier of nations (not much different than England).
Not to mention, the country's axis has shifted from Midwest, to the coasts and south. That is where population growth is. That is where most new ethnic groups, be it Hispanic Americans, or Chinese or other oriental Americans, are putting roots in. Those new ethnic groups, don't have any historical connections to the old glory days. To them Honda and Toyota and now Koreans, are the real players, with the role of Caddy being played by the Germans.
So loss of Government Motors to China will happen. At the end, it may be a good thing, as the shift to a more sophisticated Chinese customer taste in autos compared to redneck Midwest boys (can any one believe a Mustang with rigid axle being the performance made in America car of choice in 2010 - amazing), may actually make GM more relevant, as the better Buick product made for a more sophisticated Chinese palette is already proving it in America.
escaladeviper says:
02:33 PM, 08/01/2010
Nobama=Globalist in sheep's clothing, just like the rest of the sheep except JFK.
sniperruff says:
11:27 AM, 08/01/2010
Most of you need a good dose of fundamental economics.
It is a fact that GM products sold within the US have been inferior compared to its rivals, either domestic (Ford) or foreign (Honda, Toyota etc), this is a fact demonstrated by slipping market share, as reported by GM:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/000119312509045144/d10k.htm
Note that I mentioned GM products sold within US, because GM was apparently doing OK in other international markets.
This perhaps led to an over-reliance of rebates and financing incentives over the years. GM's incompotent management failed to stop that trend.
Combined with unrealistic US union demands and the collapsing economy (which led to consumers defaulting on automotive loans originated by GMAC), the old GM model wasn't sustainable, and it went into bankruptcy.
Given the size and the number of jobs created by GM, bankruptcy and foreseeable liquidation, the US government was forced to step in. I am sure anyone with a right mind will refrain from investing in GM (nobody wants to take over the largest (or 2nd largest) automotive company laden with massive amount of debt with declining market share), including the US government.
In conclusion, GM was a company with inferior products, and the US government was forced to step in, not for political but for economic reasons. These are the facts.