just heard this on fox news... will try to dig up more info....

Wow. Just, wow.

GM sure stinks, but Chrysler just plain sucks. I guess then, Ford blows...?!? :D

(I'd much prefer GM over the other two, over & over again if I had to)

Ditto.... Out of the big 3 I would prefer GM as well.
Sounds like it's just in the talking stages right now.

A person familiar with GM downplayed the chances of such a swap, suggesting it would be overly favorable to the private equity firm. According to those familiar with the situation, GM had approached Ford to discuss possible strategic alliances, but Ford had decided against such steps.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-chrysler12-2008oct12,0,3564424.story

Of the Big 3, GM & Ford have the greater probability of long-term survivability & eventual success than Chrysler. The Daimler alliance set them back potentially a generation or two, as well as locking them into relatively non-lucrative/uncompetitive fixed-contracts committed to buying/using EXPENSIVE Daimler components (in particular: engines) for a great many years to come.

GM is quite diversified so it's just a matter of them fine-tuning their offerings/business towards what actually makes them money, or loses less money (:D).

Ford is a global player (not to GM's level of diversity & scope though), believe it or not, in solid/consistent economic regions (U.K., Western Europe, etc').

Yay let them merge.Maybe they will bring back Al Bundy's old brown dodge!

Maybe they will bring back Al Bundy's old brown dodge!http://img13.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i286555_al.gif (http://imagehosting.gr)

The Daimler alliance set them back potentially a generation or two, as well as locking them into relatively non-lucrative/uncompetitive fixed-contracts committed to buying/using EXPENSIVE Daimler components (in particular: engines) for a great many years to come.What motors are you talking about???

What motors are you talking about???A few car rags & Business Week had articles regarding the Daimler & Chrysler divorce, and they mentioned how as-per contractual-agreement, the latter has to buy 'x' amount of engines/etc' from the latter over 'y' amount of time, etc'.

I'd cite the article word for word, but I haven't had my morning coffee yet... :D