pow

Empty carbs? For cheap? Really? I gotta try that! If you like baguettes, look to Vietnam - banh minhs are perfect for student budgets like mine. $2 and you get a baguette with cold cuts, pate, jalapenos, pickled veg... or grilled mystery meat meatballs, or BBQ pork... Subway, eat your heart out!

New Insight... decent looking.

Basic Italian today... basically a crapload of antipasti, plus a starch, a salad, and a meat. Antipasti -- Crostini #1 - ciabatta + burrata, chili, EVOO, basil Crostini #2 - ciabatta + chopped cherry tomatoes w/ olives, EVOO, balsamic, dried chili Crostini #3 - ciabatta + mashed cannellini w/ rosemary, garlic, red wine vinegar, mint Prosciutto, salami, mortadella, one other cold cut I forgot, chicken liver pate Olives, bean salad ($1.09, Trader Joe's), jarred roasted peppers Marinated mozzarella and cherry tomatoes, more ciabatta... Primo -- Risotto - normal risotto "bianco" with pesto (blitzed basil, EVOO, toasted almonds, garlic) dumped on top Secondi -- Roasted rack of lamb - pre-Frenched, S&P + rosemary, thrown into a 375F oven Contorni -- Boiled and EVOO'ed multicolored chard (pre-washed, Trader Joe's) Butter leaf and radicchio salad + mixed herb salad ($1.99 ea, again at TJ's) Dolci -- Apple tart (frozen, TJ's), mochi ice cream With all the antipasti, you can mix 'n match as you please... using the bread or salad as a blank slate.

The Toyota-equivalent, the Matrix, is made in Canada. So, yeah, the Vibe supports more American workers. I rode in the back of a new Corolla today, which is like the sedan version of the Matrix. It's the anti-car, but honestly, it's very nice and comfortable. The seats are great, space is plentiful, and the ride comfort is amazing. Quiet, too.

Yep, it makes something like the Jetta TDI very tempting.

If California is any indicator, a few well-funded groups will push for a voter initiative and spew fear-mongering propaganda, reversing the Court's decision.

If you want something practical, get the Vibe... and in that case I'd choose the cheaper 1.8L over the GT. Around town, it's GM's most fuel-efficient car with a slushbox.

Mmm... Daewoo EXCITEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess it's better than a '93 LeMans.

Sure, the Fit is fun and practical - but what if I'm asked to take part in a beach assault with the Royal Marines? http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Top-Gea...esta_204097.htm

No actual Volts exist yet - they only have Cruze powertrain mules - but the first "genuine integration" Volt should be completed by June 1, 2009. http://gm-volt.com/2009/03/25/first-genuin...by-june-1-2009/ The "production" Volt released a few months ago was a hand-built prototype; the actual car will have smaller wheels and a different interior.

I think basic accounting tells us that $14.5b in negative cash flow over a 6 year period (as projected under GM's own plans and assumptions) does not make for a viable business. The task force's job was to determine if the creditor should loan a company more money, simple as that.

I think we'll see a CTS 3.0 get very close to 30 mpg..

The TSX will be available with a 280-hp V6. It's a nice car... the old model really found a niche as a not-quite-luxury-but-high-quality midsize sedan. I'd take a four-cylinder TSX over the excessively large and semi-flimsy feeling Accord V6.

Normally I'm not a fan of John McElroy (Autoline Detroit), but his post on Autoblog sums it up nicely, IMO: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/30/autolin...h-john-mcelroy/ WHY OBAMA AXED WAGONER Rick Wagoner is no longer CEO of General Motors for two reasons. First, he failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the government that GM would be viable going forward. Two, President Obama needed political cover before he poured more money into the auto industry, a move which is strongly opposed by a majority of Americans. Obama needed to show he was decisive and in control to maintain support for his efforts to provide taxpayer money to GM and Chrysler. And firing the chairman of General Motors will make it easier for the Administration to demand more concessions from the UAW. While axing Wagoner caught me by surprise, after reading the Task Force's report, I almost wonder why the President didn't feel compelled to act sooner. The "Determination of Viability Summary" is a harsh critique of GM's plans. In the eyes of the Task Force, Wagoner simply did not move fast enough and did not meet the government's loan requirements: GM did not come up with a competitive labor agreement, did not renegotiate its VEBA payments, and did not come to an agreement with its bond holders. Indeed, under the latest plan GM submitted to the government, its restructuring efforts would not be completed until 2014. Worse, the Task Force believes GM's plan made unrealistic assumptions. And yet, even with its rosy assumptions, GM's plan called for it to "generate negative cash flow" for years to come. Its legacy liabilities would cost $6 billion a year through 2014, requiring GM to boost sales by 900,000 vehicles a year to pay for it. But GM's plans didn't call for raising sales. Instead, it assumed that it would merely lose market share at a slower rate. The Task Force didn't buy that since GM is slashing fleet sales and closing brands. It also found fault with GM's assumption that its North American Operations would increase its contribution (profit) margin, despite the move towards passenger cars where it has lower margins. And it pointed out that GM's lingering perception problems mean it must discount its cars. The Task Force laid out a litany of problems it sees with GM's plan: * It's not getting rid of unprofitable or underperforming dealers fast enough. * Its European operations need government help which has not been forthcoming. * GM makes too much of its profits on trucks and SUVs, and is vulnerable to energy-price driven shifts in demand. * Of its top 20 profit producers, only 9 are passenger cars. * Most of its products are in the bottom quartile of fuel economy. * GM is a design generation behind Toyota in green powertrains. * The Volt will be too expensive to be a big commercial success. * The plan leaves no room for error. Even a 1% miss on sales volume in 2014 would mean another $2 billion less in cash flow. Under its current plan GM would be at breakeven, at best, during the transition period. That alone failed the government's requirement for viability. But what really drove the last nail in the coffin is that GM is already behind in its plan for 2009 sales and market share. That sapped any confidence that GM would hold to its plan going forward. So what's next? President Obama gave GM 60 days to come up with a new plan, or he's going to force the company into bankruptcy. Whether that means a pre-packaged bankruptcy or formally filing for Chapter 11 no one knows. But we can be sure of one thing. GM's new CEO Fritz Henderson undoubtedly got the message. Either he's going to come up with a new plan that addresses each and every one of the Task Force's concerns, or General Motors is going to have a brand new CEO in 60 days. ###

He should totally do that. The local BMW dealer here has Scion xB shuttle vehicles with BMW roundels. I've seen some interesting US vehicles in Germany, including a NA Fusion and a NA Odyssey. On the autobahn. Maybe it was the US military base in Heidelberg?

Exactly. The government (bank) didn't think GM or Chrysler had viable business plans, nor did the companies meet the loan requirement terms, i.e., labor modifications, VEBA modifications, and bond debt exchange - so of course they won't lend money to somebody who'll lose it all.

Viability Assessments - GM: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...-assessment.pdf Chrysler: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...-assessment.pdf Neither GM nor Chrysler have met the terms for a loan agreement, but GM is considered "viable" under further restructuring, while Chrysler isn't - it can't survive on its own and needs a partnership.

It's not bad... reminds me of the new Megane, only not as good looking.

GM should stick with the basics. A global "standard of the world" Cadillac is a diversion from the bigger issues they're facing. An Escalade as the flagship Cadillac doesn't make for the most elegant of portfolios, but it works - it outsold the S-class in February.

The Great California Black Car Crisis is over — for now at least. The California Air Resources Board said Friday that it has no plans “at this time” to regulate car paint as part of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and never intended to outlaw black cars in the first place. “We are by no means interested in banning or restricting car colors,” CARB spokesman Stanley Young said. Reports that regulators were planning to banish black cars from the Golden State in an effort to reduce air pollution created a global uproar, perhaps best expressed in this headline from Rush Limbaugh’s website: “Tyrants Want to Ban Black Cars.” The purported black car ban was said to be part of the “cool cars” initiative being cooked up by the air board, which is looking for ways to follow the legislature’s mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California. Greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming, and automotive tailpipe emissions are a major source. One solution: lower the temperature inside parked cars, thereby reducing the amount of air conditioning — and engine power and gasoline — needed to keep the occupants cool and comfortable. CARB looked at two possible ways to achieve this: mandating the use of reflective paints that reduce the amount of solar heat absorbed by a vehicle, and requiring manufacturers to install glass with reflective coatings to achieve the same purpose. When word got out that CARB couldn’t find a reflective version of deep black paint that suited its needs, auto enthusiast blogs and conservative commentators smelled another “kooky California” story — or “out-of-control government” expose, take your pick — and jumped in with relish. The fact that black is the second most popular color among car owners in the U.S. — behind white — helped stoke the outrage. The Truth About Cars, a blog that brings a smart sensibility to its automotive commentary, opined that “regulating car color comes across as nothing more than an exercise in bureaucratic power for its own sake.” CARB ultimately decided to ditch the paint scheme and move ahead with just the reflective glass mandate (which is not window tinting, by the way; it’s a reflective clear coat). The air board is now taking public comments on its proposed reflective glass rules, which it estimates will add $31-$50 to the cost of a new vehicle while saving Californians millions of gallons of fuel a year by 2020 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions significantly. (You can read the various iterations of the cool cars rules and get info on submitting a comment here.) A final vote on the rules may come at the air board’s meeting in late June. So, did the bureaucrats really intend to ban black cars, only to be foiled by an outraged citizenry? That’s hard to say. Young notes that it’s not unusual for CARB to get an earful over its proposed regs, and in this case, “it wasn’t exactly opposition” that killed the paint initiative. “It was an appraisal that the technology was not yet mature enough to deliver what we hoped to achieve.” Moreover, the CARB PowerPoint presentation that got everyone’s fan belt in a twist never actually recommends that black cars be banned. It merely — “sinisterly,” Rush might say — notes that “jet black remains an issue.” Still, the timing is interesting. Although the workshop at which the paint plan was discussed was held on March 12, the decision to drop the idea wasn’t made until this week, according to Young — the very same week, sinisterly enough, that Limbaugh referred to the CARB rule makers as tyrants. Coincidence? We report, you decide. -- Martin Zimmerman http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/...ck-car-ban.html

I'm 19 - what do you expect?

It reminded me of the HHR - lots of brittle plastic, made obvious by the high beltline and tiny windows. I didn't have to touch much to get the impression of cheapness. But the halo headlights! Those are cool. :camarosmile:

I finally got to sit in the Camaro. The Mustang is by far the more livable and usable car - better visibility, higher quality interior, larger trunk opening, lower curb weight - but the Camaro looks like no other car out there. I'd probably choose a $26K Camaro over a $26K Mustang for its styling and engine, but if Ecoboost replaced the hoary old 4.0L... then that's a different story.

For some people, MPG is as exciting as HP. Granted nobody needs 300 hp or 70 mpg, but you can derive a certain kind of pleasure from having both. Hypermiling requires the same 'precision driving' that enthusiastic mountain carving requires - it's more than just going slow.

Autoblog did the same thing with the Insight and Fusion Hybrid.