hyperv6

Here is a story that better explaines this and shows this is not the sky falling. Autoblog contacted a accountant and got the facts on this vs the press. Here is a fact filled explanation By Manuel Johnson, former Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board FASB. GM's announcement of a $38.6 billion loss yesterday generated quite a bit of shock and many questions. The explanation of "accounting adjustments" didn't sit well with those of us who don't study tax laws for a living, so we decided to pull out our Rolodex and call up someone who could give us a quick lesson in accounting standards. Fortunately, we had the number for Manuel Johnson, former chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Mr. Johnson explained to us that U.S. tax law allows a corporation that suffers net losses to carry forward the total loss balance into future years in order to use the negative numbers as offsets against future profits. The result is that future taxes are lower because the corporation is taxed only on the profits minus the forwarded loss. Meanwhile, the total losses that are carried forward are treated as assets on the balance sheet. That is where GM gets its total of $38.6 billion; it is the automaker's cumulative loss total. In particular, Mr. Johnson had this to say for the reasoning behind GM's surprising book report: The FASB has decided to toughen the criteria for asset valuations on the balance sheet of corporations. Adjustments are required for assets that don't meet the tougher test by first quarter of 2008. This is a one time adjustment and it could be reduced in the future if it looks like GM will be more profitable. It looks like GM chose the 3rd quarter of 2007 to make the necessary adjustments in its books to match the new rules put forth by the FASB. That is why the $38.6 billion reported number is just a formality and not actual cash. Perhaps we might see a few more corporations follow in the footsteps of GM by posting record losses in coming months, as well. Just posted this so the facts would get in the way.

I just hope we employ 10's of thousands of people here and develope a new battery or power plant that will still give me cheap long range and good 0-60 times. If along the way we develope something that will zap all the terrorist while feeding the world and keeping us young with my heart beating 150 years I will take it too. I would hate to see today if we had not had NASA in the past. It would be me still picking up the phone and saying Sara you all need to connect my phone to Barney. Besides my father is alive thanks to spaceage technology and still be able to see my son grow up. That is worth a billion right there to me. I may have been to Canton Ohio but I still don't speak Cantonise So lets keep our technology lead here in the USA. Besides anyone who had to take trig. can thank NASA for the calculator.

There is a lot of compition for space right now. Europe, China, Japan Russia, and many private interest. IF we don't get back into the game now we will get left behind. The Space Shuttle is late 1960 and early 1970's technology and we are far behind. Lets face it the new Cadillac CTS is more advanced than many of the Space programs we are still using. Hell I use a main rear landing gear tire from the Space shuttle for weight in my truck in the winter. It is 190 pounds of space age technology that is working for me and it fits under my bed cover. Besides the truck rides better with it in the bed!

The best thing the goverment can do for technology development and support of our indusry is to get fully behind the space program again. For the last so many years we have had NASA just going through the motions with budget cuts. They have not been a big help in developing new technology in great quanities like in the past. The space race in the 60's and 70's did more for the human race advancement than any one thing ever done. The objective of NASA was not to just go to the moon but to develope technology to get there. The talk of going to Mars would be a big step to bring us new power systems and bateries that could change our lives in ways we can not even understand yet. Let face it GM and Boeing have already built a car for the moon in the 60's that was electric, light, AWD and 4 wheel steering. Hmmm What do you thing the largest American car company and the builder of some of the highest tech planes can do working to gether funded by the goverment? Things learned there could carry over into the private sector so easily. Lets face it we would not be here today debating this as we are without a space program. Add to that there are some here alive today with things learned by NASA. I know a few people with pace makers or have had heart surgery that would not have been possible with out what was learn going to the moon. China and Japan are on their way to the moon and learning more every day. They can't steal much anymore since we are not learning as much. If we want to be a viable technology leader our goverment needs to jumpstart the program again. NASA is a gold mine that is still able to produce a fortune of technology.

British Leyland was run by the British Goverment. And today MG is a car from China. Those who can do those who can't run for office.

Hmm..... I wonder if you asked her what the Chevy Volt was if she would have a clue? Second: I wonder if she has a clue to how much reshearch 2 Billion would buy you? Third: I wonder if she has a clue how much $20 billion in loans would do to retrofit all the pants to meet this goal? I know things need to improve but these canadates needs to engage someone who has a clue. It is just so sad Americans as a whole are getting so uniformed that people running for office can say anything and get away with it so easy. What is even more sad is there are few in the news media smart eough to call her on this.

Hillary Clinton calls for 55 mpg by 2030 David Shepardson and Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed hiking fuel economy standards to a combined fleetwide average of 55 miles per gallon by 2030. She also pledged to offer domestic automakers $20 billion in low-interest government loans to help retool factories. Clinton, the New York Democratic senator, has courted the United Auto Workers and met with domestic auto CEOs, but been at odds with them on fuel economy requirements. In a speech Monday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, she joined Democratic rivals in taking a hard line on requiring substantial increases in fuel economy requirements. Clinton proposed a boost significantly beyond what the Senate approved in June, which is to hike combined fleet-wide standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2020. That's a 60 percent increase over the current 25 mpg standard. A less-aggressive proposal would cost automakers at least $85 billion by 2020. She argued that engine technology has stagnated, noting that Henry Ford would immediately recognize the engine in a car made today. "Imagine over the last century if we had advanced as far in powering our autos as we have at making them safer," she said. Of auto companies, Clinton said: "I want to be a partner, a good partner, to help them transition to the clean economy." She also said she would work with them on legacy health care and retiree costs. The Senate in June voted 65-27 to increase fuel economy standards to a combined 35 mpg by 2020 -- a 40 percent increase. The Detroit Three and Toyota have backed a softer increase that would hike fuel economy standards by between 28 and 40 percent by 2022 to between 32 mpg and 35 mpg. House and Senate staffers are working behind closed doors to try to reach a deal on an energy bill. The House sidestepped the issue of fuel economy when it passed an energy bill in August -- in part because more than 160 House members had backed the increased supported by automakers. Clinton's presidential campaign rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, has been running ads in New Hampshire touting the fact that he spoke to the Detroit Economic Club in May to tell automakers directly they need to do more. "I went to Detroit to insist that we had to increase fuel economy standards," Obama says in his ad. Another presidential rival, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., would hike fuel economy standards to 50 mpg by 2017 and former Sen. John Edwards has said Americans should be encouraged to give up their SUVs. Sen. Clinton is taking a much tougher line with automakers today than she did in May 2006, when she declined to directly endorse a specific fuel economy increase. "I do believe it's vital we make progress on fuel- efficiency standards. We can't separate, however, the challenge of making auto manufacturing more energy-efficient and the challenge of making U.S. manufacturing more competitive," she said then at a National Press Club forum. "I believe we could do both. We need to be sure that our high standards don't provide an easy excuse for more auto jobs to leave the U.S., but I don't think that's the reason not to do it." But since then the ground has dramatically shifted as automakers have lost a series of battles -- in the courts and on Capitol Hill -- amid growing momentum to raise passenger cars standards, which haven't been raised since 1985. Clinton's campaign said by 2030 "these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180 billion per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons." Clinton signed a letter last week raising her opposition to a provision in the Senate bill would weaken a provision of U.S law designed to keep 17,000 small car production jobs in the United States -- a key concern of the UAW. Her 16-page plan notes that "Domestic automakers face serious competitive challenges due to higher labor costs, older equipment, and higher health care costs than their competition." She would also create $20 billion in low-interest "Green Vehicle Bonds" so automakers could get "immediate help to retool the oldest auto plants to meet her strong efficiency standards." U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, in February proposed up to $20 billion in federally backed loan guarantees to automakers and suppliers to cut the cost of obtaining capital. Automakers could also get a " tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans to offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures that exceed a certain threshold." She would also move to accelerate production of plug-in electric hybrids -- though none are currently commercially available in wide numbers. Clinton also said she would: *Invest $2 billion in research and development to reduce the cost and increase the longevity and durability of batteries. Last year, automakers asked President Bush for $500 million in new battery funding -- a request that wasn't granted. *Offer consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in hybrid *Add 100,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to the federal fleet by 2015. One auto official said "it's futile to comment when the candidates are engaged in one-upsmanship."

The correct statment is there are no cheap perfromance hardtops. The idea of the Camaro and Mustang is to serve a well equipedt cat with a V8 for under $30K and to keep the weight down. The Mecedes is neither cheap or light. As for the convert it is neither cheaper or lighter and a stifffer platform than a post coupe. Chassie stiffness it a key to better handling and keeping the weight out is a key target. Same for T tops. No one makes them anymore since the drop tops are back.

The November 5th issue of Autoweek offers great praise for the new Malibu. They praised the ride, styling, handling, trunks space, fit and finish. They dislikes the dash lights and the location of the paddle shifters on the wheel. Overall they feel they it the mark and said they were very impress after back to back drives in the Toyota. Som in the group compare the car the the VW Passat. They said the ride is a littler firmer than the avverage Chevy but that is what they need to attract the new buyers. The car tested was the LTZ. They also noted the Chrome trim was a great touch. They were also impressed it was the first Chevy to attract attention [outside of the Vette] in a long time. They said many young people were interested in the car that could bode well for future sales. They summed it up as the Aura was a very good car and this one shows the improvemnts of the extra time they developed this car since the Auras arrival. Chevy may just have the car they needed, now they only have to convice the public to try it.

Yawn!!!! Ok car but not a Pontiac. Not really a GM to be honest. The Alpha will not come soon enough. The Vibe has been ok but it is not a car that Pontiac has built a foundation on and if it was here or not it really makes little differance. I already know two past owners who have gone to a HHR and have no regret.

Spent a lot of time in a 1969 SJ with a 428 HO 390 HP engine. That car was just flat out enjoyable ride. Had a friend who had a winter beater with the black leather interior that was in great shape. I wish we had saved it before the car went to the scap yard. It was a 69-70 and it was the only factory leather I can recall seeing.

the styling may be bland but we get the new drivetrain for once before the new platform vs the other way around a year after the new platrfom arrives. This car will buy some time till the new car is out.

Just note how the noses of many cars are so much higher now. This is due to many of the pedestrian regs in Europe on crush space for the body to hit. Now we have air bags for almost every place but your feet. To get a true answer you would need a GM Engineer to cover all the fine points strength as well as the cost. I know you have a good grasp of things and understand there has to be not one designer that does not want to do a hard top but safety, weight and cost drive it out. They are the ones that really have to be bumming. And don't just blame GM for this as there is no one making one cheap and light anymore. For all of them not to be doing it the reason have to be legitimate. There is no way that not one company would not jump on this if it was easy or affordable to do. There would be too much to gain to not to.

I agree!

The Why is this is SEMA and not Detroit. These are mostly custom wow cars with not imply they are for prodution, In the past there were some cue's of what we may see in a future car but not much more than that. These are just cars to get attention and nothing more. This car more than not spot light some kind of Eviro drivetrain since that is the theme of many Gm cars this year. Kind of reminds me of a modern day Pontiac Monte Carlo. Yes the Pontiac Monte based on the Tempest that had a cut windshield and passenger seat cover. It had some kind of a SD slant 4 with a Micley Thompson supercharger on it if I recall as a show car. It was converted for street use and was sold just a few years ago. I think there is a little more heritage here than most can recall. There is a little Club De Mer too in it.

That was as big as the photo was. GM will be release more pictures I would guess Saturday or Sunday night. This was only a teaser by GM for what is to come.

It is a GM tease picture and we will see more next week as the SEMA show starts then. Tis could either be a pure show car or a indicator of the direction they be moving in for the future. That is with two passengers.

GM released only this single image of the unique Pontiac Solstice SD-290 Concept. The Solstice features a cover over the passenger compartment that evokes vintage single-seat racers of yore and even includes a new windscreen and separate review mirror mounted in the middle. It's likely powered by something that's green since this is the theme of many of the cars.

GM released only this single image of the unique Pontiac Solstice SD-290 Concept. The Solstice features a cover over the passenger compartment that evokes vintage single-seat racers of yore and even includes a new windscreen and separate review mirror mounted in the middle. It's likely powered by something that's green since it is the theme of many of the cars.

The rear looks wider and for some reason it looks like the rear is slanted up more. It looks like the whole rear is geared for more downforce. It just looks like there are a lot of small air management things they have done to give the car better high speed stability.

I am not sure on the lap time but I saw someone timed the video at 1:38 based on the video. With muliple shots the time can vary. This compared to a Daytona Riley Pontiac prototype runs a 1:25 and a Ford GT at 1:52 with a non race driver behind the wheel. I hope someone will get a accurate time that was at the track and it will give us a clue for what to expect.

I would use a little caution here as creative accounting will be going on on both sides. Either way it still shows GM has still got game but it is still a close race.

Here are a few photos from ALMS. Note the spring compression is several of the pictures. This car is showing grip as well as speed.

We have a red one here locally. If it were not for the LHD and the GTO on the Seats the red one looked correct. It made a nice looking car and stood out at the Pontiac show I saw it at.

Old news since I think this was the Barret Jackson car form last January. Was not worth it then and still not worth it today. They let a Fiero Convetible show car go for $16 K with only 4,000 miles built by ASC for GM. The car had the roof off of a 1985 Vette and was the best built one I had ever seen. Looked GM factory done. It also had all the ASC documentation to go with it. That was a more than fair price for a show car that you could really use and enjoy. Sad to say I met the original owner and he paid way too much and lost on the deal.