# Report: GM CEO Fritz Henderson Resigns



## Administrator (Mar 14, 2008)

Frederick "Fritz" Henderson has resigned as General Motors chief executive officer.

Henderson (left, in the photo above) was appointed CEO on March 29, replacing Rick Waggoner who shown the door by the Obama administration. Over the last eight months, Henderson worked at reorganizing the company. GM announced that Chairman Ed Whitacre Jr. (right, in the photo) will take over as interim CEO until a permanent replacement is found.

"Fritz has done a remarkable job in leading the company through an unprecedented period of challenge and change," said Whitacre. "While momentum has been building over the past several months, all involved agree that changes needed to be made. To this end, I have taken over the role of Chairman and CEO while an international search for a new president and CEO begins immediately. With these new duties, I will begin working in the Renaissance Center headquarters on a daily basis. The leadership team – many who are with me today – are united and committed to the task at hand."

During Henderson's tenure, GM filed for Chapter 11 protection and, 40 days later, emerged from protection with help from the government. On Nov. 16, Henderson announced GM would begin paying back the government's $6.7 billion loan.

As part of the company's recovery efforts, GM scaled back to four key brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. Pontiac is shutting down and GM found a Chinese buyer for Hummer. GM also came close to finding new owners for Saturn and Saab. A deal with Roger Penske for Saturn fell apart, while a deal for Saab with Koenigsegg also fell through. GM also announced today it has "has received expressions of interest in Saab" and will evaluate potential bids before the end of December.

More: *Report: GM CEO Fritz Henderson Resigns* on AutoGuide.com


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

Funny, Ever since the FEDS took 60% ownership of GM they are having a hard time holding on to CEO's. Coincidence or behind the scenes shenanigans courtesy of the "*TRUE CEO*?"


----------



## MJGTOWISH (Jun 15, 2006)

GTO JUDGE said:


> Funny, Ever since the FEDS took 60% ownership of GM they are having a hard time holding on to CEO's. Coincidence or behind the scenes shenanigans courtesy of the "*TRUE CEO*?"


*Feds own 60% of old gm* :lol:


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

MJGTOWISH said:


> *Feds own 60% of old gm* :lol:


This is the NEW GM with the FEDS holding the majority controlling interest. Until GM satisfies their obligation to the FEDS, the FEDS will be the puppeteers.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

They could save themselves if they made a basic car and a basic truck, no thrills, great millage, easy enough for the simpleton to work on and dropped the price in at least half. What they would lose in dealer repairs they would make up for in total sales as ever fleet in the country would be using them.


----------



## MJGTOWISH (Jun 15, 2006)

Rukee said:


> They could save themselves if they made a basic car and a basic truck, no thrills, great millage, easy enough for the simpleton to work on and dropped the price in at least half. What they would lose in dealer repairs they would make up for in total sales as ever fleet in the country would be using them.


*Are you serious? LOL 90% of people are idiots that barely know when to change there oil.
For example... What Happens When You Don?t Change Your Oil For 60,000 Miles - LOLCars - Jalopnik

But anyway Americans are nothing like they were in the 60's most are to lazy or two dump to even do basic mantience on cars..... And for the 10% of that do we have have no problem with ODB2 and Fi and so on.*


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

I believe even after their debt is satisfied the FEDS will still be involved in the business. I don't think it will be as easy to unload the FEDS as it would seem or at least *THIS *administration.


----------



## MJGTOWISH (Jun 15, 2006)

GTO JUDGE said:


> I believe even after their debt is satisfied the FEDS will still be involved in the business. I don't think it will be as easy to unload the FEDS as it would seem or at least *THIS *administration.


*What do you mean by that?

in any event gm just needs to make lighter cars. Light cars = Better handling, Better gas Milage, (More effiecent = happy gov.)= More happy people 

That damn camaro should not weight that much!*


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

MJGTOWISH said:


> *What do you mean by that?
> 
> in any event gm just needs to make lighter cars. Light cars = Better handling, Better gas Milage, (More effiecent = happy gov.)= More happy people
> 
> That damn camaro should not weight that much!*


I didn't think I needed to elaborate but I will;

The FEDS have insisted for YEARS and YEARS car manufactures were to build cars THEY think should be built. i.e. high fuel efficient cars, emissions etc... Problem is if the the manufactures did build the cars the FEDS wanted they wouldn't sell. We're going to see a belly full of pathetic cars, coming. Prime example: Smart Car. So, the car manufacturers built cars they think would sell. Not always on target but cars THEY designed. Dragging their feet, not appeasing the FEDS. Now they are paying the price. Now they will be forced to comply with what the FEDS want. 

Enter BAIL OUT... This I believe is the Feds Trojan Horse to do the job THEY think is right. Now with the FEDS involved in the business and controlling the majority interest they are in a position to dictate what is on the drawing boards, and actions taken in a time line THEY feel it should be taken. If not, heads will roll.... Rick Wagner, now Fritz Henderson. Neither worked at lighting speed the FEDS wanted so color them gone. The FEDS have laid a foundation of doing things at lightning speed. And ALL they have done doing so FLOPPED. One example: Health care was to be done in 6 weeks. It is a disaster in progress yet they still want it passed regardless of how bad it is. 

*THIS* administration has their hands in big business now dictating and controlling. It goes beyond auto manufacturing. The push to Socializing big business and the country is in full gear, GM and Chrysler are at the FEDS mercy. Ford? They didn't take the bait, so far so good. IMO Even after GM satisfies their obligation to GM the quest to control this portion of big business by this administration is cancerous and I do not see them relinquishing control despite what the TRUE CEO says. They will stay in the fray to make sure GM doesn't stray.


----------



## Too Many Projects (Nov 15, 2008)

Rukee said:


> They could save themselves if they made a basic car and a basic truck, no thrills, great millage, easy enough for the simpleton to work on and dropped the price in at least half. What they would lose in dealer repairs they would make up for in total sales as ever fleet in the country would be using them.


They had the basic car in the Saturn but they drop that and keep the GMC line ...:confused
The only vehicles with the GMC emblems are trucks and SUV's. They are already in production with the Chevrolet division. Why keep them both ?


----------



## MJGTOWISH (Jun 15, 2006)

Too Many Projects said:


> They had the basic car in the Saturn but they drop that and keep the GMC line ...:confused
> The only vehicles with the GMC emblems are trucks and SUV's. They are already in production with the Chevrolet division. Why keep them both ?


*I always thought chevy should only make cars and gmc trucks and suvs......*


----------



## MJGTOWISH (Jun 15, 2006)

GTO JUDGE said:


> I didn't think I needed to elaborate but I will;
> 
> The FEDS have insisted for YEARS and YEARS car manufactures were to build cars THEY think should be built. i.e. high fuel efficient cars, emissions etc... Problem is if the the manufactures did build the cars the FEDS wanted they wouldn't sell. We're going to see a belly full of pathetic cars, coming. Prime example: Smart Car. So, the car manufacturers built cars they think would sell. Not always on target but cars THEY designed. Dragging their feet, not appeasing the FEDS. Now they are paying the price. Now they will be forced to comply with what the FEDS want.
> 
> ...



*Will if you ask for billions....... But imho as long as a car can get atleast 3 stars in a crash rating and at-least 25mpg I don't see an issue....*


----------



## Too Many Projects (Nov 15, 2008)

MJGTOWISH said:


> *I always thought chevy should only make cars and gmc trucks and suvs......*


Traditionally, GMC trucks are fancier than the Chevs. They don't make a fleet work truck, Chev makes them. Still, if GMC covered the entire lineup, yeah, just pick one and run with it...:cheers


----------



## GM4life (Mar 18, 2007)

GTO JUDGE said:


> This is the NEW GM with the FEDS holding the majority controlling interest. Until GM satisfies their obligation to the FEDS, the FEDS will be the puppeteers.


Not only the FEDs but the "UNION" and the Canadian gov.


MJGTOWISH said:


> *What do you mean by that?
> 
> in any event gm just needs to make lighter cars. Light cars = Better handling, Better gas Milage, (More effiecent = happy gov.)= More happy people
> 
> That damn camaro should not weight that much!*


Cars are heavy because of the GOVnt they make it manditory to have saftey devices, fifty airbags, crash avoidance, and crash protection, ect. People want more luxo type crap and if you ever owned a car from the 80's or older you know how flimsy they were the dash creeks, the body twisted, ect.


Too Many Projects said:


> They had the basic car in the Saturn but they drop that and keep the GMC line ...:confused
> The only vehicles with the GMC emblems are trucks and SUV's. They are already in production with the Chevrolet division. Why keep them both ?


:agree


----------



## Poncho Dan (Jun 30, 2009)

Oh yeah, I remember those cars from the early 80's... air pumps lol, solenoid-metered carburetors (why not just go TBI - wtf?), super high final drive ratios, EGR technology, jokes for flywheel HP numbers, and so much smog plumbing that replacing spark plugs could take 2 hours or more.

My '83 & '84 Parisiennes had 305 chevy's in them. That motor for the application and year was 150 horsepower at the flywheel. It was probably like 90 at the wheel after going through that sucky 700r4. I *could* get 25 mpg out of them if I was on a road trip, and didn't stop for gas, food, etc. Otherwise I got 12 in the city. My '03 Grand Am has a 134 (2.2) Ecotec, is rated for 140 horsepower and gets 30-37. Thats 4 fewer cylinders and 56% less displacement for nearly the same power. :lol:


I had heard that GM was looking into turbo 1.3s and 1.4s with lots of boost thrown at them for future motors. They've had great success with the LNF, and it really surprises me that a 290hp/tq (and full tq from 2k-4k) 4 banger couldn't be used in place of some of these larger V6s that produce smaller numbers, especially in truck applications.:confused


----------

