Geely, the Chinese automaker that will be buying Volvo from FoMoCo, will launch a new modified version of its GE limousine sedan at the 2010 Beijing Motor Show next week. The original model, which made its debut at last year’s Shanghai Motor Show, was criticized for being startlingly similar to the Rolls-Royce Phantom.

Click here to get prices on the 2010 Rolls-Royce Phantom.

The new Geely GE has been heavily restyle with a much rounder look. Inside, the model gets two rear seats rather than single “throne” arrangement of the original concept.

After the original Geely GE prototype made its debut last year in Shaghai, Rolls-Royce announced that it may consider legal action against the Chinese automaker.

We’re not sure what they’re thinking now.

2011 Geely GE:

– By: Kap Shah

Source: AutoCar

Filed under: Motorsports, Ferrari, Racing

We were pretty impressed after initially watching the Ferrari F430 Challenge cars turn laps at Miller Motorsports Park this past weekend. After all, each of the cars boasts a 490 horsepower V8 and is set up specifically for racing. You can imagine that they’re quite capable of turning insanely quick laps. Then a trio of FXXs took to the track and our definition of “fast” was altered forever.

Despite the fact that it will never turn a competitive lap, the Ferrari FXX is a brutally impressive racecar. The second generation Evoluzione version (pictured above), is Ferrari’s most advanced GT car ever built with an 860 horsepower V12, a sequential gearbox that can perform shifts in just 60 milliseconds and a curb weight of just over 2,500 pounds. We might have preferred the beauty of the 599XX, but there was no doubt which car was the most capable of the lowest lap times.

In addition to our photos of the FXXs in the pit lane garages, we also came away from the weekend with plenty of shots of the cars on track. Have a look for yourself in the high-res gallery below.

Photos by Drew Phillips / Copyright (C)2010 Weblogs, Inc.

2010 Ferrari Challenge at MMP: Ferrari FXX is king of the track originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:57:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

About a month ago, Ford confirmed that sales of the 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor have far outpaced the company’s original projections. The automaker said that it has received well over 5,500 orders for the new pickup and that number is expected to grow with the new 411-hp 6.2L V8, which recently hit dealerships. So what’s next for the off-roading desert king?

Click here to get prices on the 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor.

According to a report by Inside Line, Ford SVT will soon reveal a SuperCrew version with four full-size doors.

Sales of the Ford F-150 SVT Raptor SuperCrew version are expected to begin next year for a small price premium over the current SuperCab version.

Click here to read our review on the 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor.

Review: 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor:

– By: Omar Rana

Source: Straightline

BMW has repeatedly denied any plans of doing an M version of the 1-Series that would most likely be known as the M1 – however, teasers, rumors and spy shots of the car keep popping up on the web. The latest spy shots by Bridge to Gantry show a heavily modified 1-Series hitting up the Nurburgring (we also have a short 9 second video posted after the jump).

Click here for prices on the 2010 BMW 135i.

Last we heard anything, it was reported that BMW has no plans to do an M version of the 1-Series but you can definitely expect something like the 135is like the 335is we saw at the 2010 New York Auto Show.

Only time will tell – but the way we think of it if BMW can do an M version of the X5 and X6, they can definitely justify an M version of the 1-Series

Hit the jump for the video.

Spy Shots: BMW M1 (M version of 1-Series):

– By: Omar Rana

Source: Bridge to Gantry

Filed under: Performance, Bugatti

When you’ve been responsible for as many Formula One World Championships and devastatingly fast supercars – including the new McLaren MP4-12C (pictured above) – as Ron Dennis, you’re entitled to speak your mind… and for others to listen up. The executive chairman and part owner of the McLaren Group, Dennis has earned a reputation for his outspoken opinion, and this time directed his criticism toward the venerable Bugatti Veyron.

In a recent interview, Dennis characterized the Veyron as a “piece of junk” and “pig ugly”. Why don’t you tell us how you really feel, Ron?

The speed guru went on to allege that the race staged by Top Gear between the Veyron and McLaren’s own venerable F1 supercar on the streets of Abu Dhabi was exactly that… staged. According to Dennis, the McLaren had the Bugatti handily beat on every run, and that the video footage was edited to make it seem like the Veyron was the quicker of the two. Check it out after the jump and decide for yourself.

[Source: Wheels24.co.za]

Continue reading McLaren boss calls Veyron “junk,” claims Top Gear race with F1 staged

McLaren boss calls Veyron “junk,” claims Top Gear race with F1 staged originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:32:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Released in February 2010, Heavy Rain has since poured into livingrooms and Blu-ray drives. So how heavy has Heavy Rain gotten? Try a million units worth.
 
 
 
 

Uber-finance blogger Eddy Elfeinbein has put together an awesome list of deep truths about markets and investing.

Here are a few:

The Federal Reserve isn’t nearly as powerful as is commonly believed.

There isn’t a person or group of people in charge of the market.

There’s no such thing as a “healthy correction.”

Good stocks can go down for no reason.

Bad stocks can go up for no reason.

A trend can last much longer than you thought possible.

Stocks don’t know you own them.

The market doesn’t care about politics.

The most important variable to the stock market, by far, is the direction of long-term interest rates.

Mega-mergers rarely work.

Investment bubbles aren’t due to the moral failings of the market participants.

Read all of them here >

Join the conversation about this story »

In August of 2009, General Motors held a press conference stating that the 2011 Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric-car will average a city fuel-economy of at least 230 miles per gallon. Yesterday, engineers working on the Volt gave us a little update on what’s going on with the development of the Volt, however, they weren’t willing to confirm the 230 mpg city fuel-economy that they touted last year.

“The 230 mpg number talked about a few months ago was based on some preliminary discussion with the EPA,” said Andrew Farah, the vehicle chief engineer on the Chevrolet Volt. “Those conversations have been continuing and have not yet come to a conclusion.”

GM’s Volt spokesman, Rob Peterson, was also contacted by Inside Line asking whether the 230 mpg number was irrelevant at this point. He replied: “I don’t have anything to say about it at this point in time.”

Other than that, engineers confirmed that the Volt was hitting its target of 40 miles on battery power alone. They also confirmed that when the Volt travels in extended range mode (with the engine running), it averages about 50 mpg.

Click here for more news on the Chevrolet Volt.

2011 Chevrolet Volt:

– By: Omar Rana

Source: Inside Line

Revenue, earnings, gross margin, and operating margin all nicely ahead of consensus.

Stock up in after-market.

Here’s the release >

SANTA CLARA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Intel Corporation today reported first-quarter revenue of $10.3 billion. The company reported operating income of $3.4 billion, net income of $2.4 billion and EPS of 43 cents.

“The investments we’re making in leading edge technology are delivering the most compelling product line-up in our history,” said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO. “These leadership products combined with growing worldwide demand and continued outstanding execution resulted in Intel’s best first quarter ever. Looking forward, we’re optimistic about our business as Intel products are designed into a variety of new and exciting segments.”

GAAP Financial Comparison

Q1 2010

vs. Q4 2009

vs. Q1 2009

Revenue

$10.3 billion

down 3%

up 44%

Operating Income

$3.4 billion

up 38%

up 433%

Net Income

$2.4 billion

up 7%

up 288%

Earnings Per Share

43 cents

up 3 cents

up 32 cents

Non-GAAP Financial Comparison

Q1 2010

vs. Q4 2009

Revenue

$10.3 billion

down 3%

Operating Income

$3.4 billion

down 8%

Net Income

$2.4 billion

down 21%

Earnings Per Share

43 cents

down 12 cents

The settlement agreement with AMD of $1.25 billion and the related tax impacts of that charge are excluded from Q4 2009 results in this Non-GAAP comparison.

Q1 2010 Highlights (all comparisons sequential)

• PC Client Group revenue was flat, with record mobile microprocessor revenue.
• Data Center Group revenue down 8 percent.
• Other Intel Architecture group revenue down 9 percent.
• Intel® Atom™ microprocessor and chipset revenue of $355 million was down 19 percent.
• The average selling price (ASP) for microprocessors was slightly up.
• Excluding shipments of Intel Atom microprocessors, the ASP was approximately flat.
• R&D plus MG&A spending of $3.1 billion was higher than the company’s prior expectation.
• The effective tax rate was 29 percent, in-line with the company’s prior expectation.

Business Outlook

The Outlook for the second quarter does not include the gain expected from the sale of our investment in Numonyx, nor does it include the effect of any other acquisitions, divestitures or similar transactions that may be completed after April 12th.

Q2 2010

• Revenue: $10.2 billion, plus or minus $400 million.
• Gross margin percentage: 64 percent, plus or minus a couple percentage points.
• R&D plus MG&A spending: Approximately $3.1 billion.
• Impact of equity investments and interest and other: approximately zero.
• Depreciation: Approximately $1.1 billion.

Full-Year 2010

• Gross margin percentage: 64 percent, plus or minus a couple percentage points. The company’s prior expectation was 61 percent plus or minus 3 percentage points.
• Spending (R&D plus MG&A): $12.4 billion, plus or minus $100 million. The company’s prior expectation was $11.8 billion, plus or minus $100 million.
• R&D spending: Approximately $6.4 billion.
• Tax rate: Approximately 31 percent for the second, third and fourth quarters.
• Depreciation: Approximately $4.4 billion, plus or minus $100 million.
• Capital spending: Expected to be $4.8 billion, plus or minus $100 million.

Status of Business Outlook

During the quarter, Intel’s corporate representatives may reiterate the Business Outlook during private meetings with investors, investment analysts, the media and others. From the close of business on May 28 until publication of the company’s second-quarter earnings release, Intel will observe a “Quiet Period” during which the Business Outlook disclosed in the company’s news releases and filings with the SEC should be considered as historical, speaking as of prior to the Quiet Period only and not subject to an update by the company.

Risk Factors

The above statements and any others in this document that refer to plans and expectations for the second quarter, the year and the future are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Many factors could affect Intel’s actual results, and variances from Intel’s current expectations regarding such factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Intel presently considers the following to be the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the corporation’s expectations.

• Demand could be different from Intel’s expectations due to factors including changes in business and economic conditions; customer acceptance of Intel’s and competitors’ products; changes in customer order patterns including order cancellations; and changes in the level of inventory at customers.
• Intel operates in intensely competitive industries that are characterized by a high percentage of costs that are fixed or difficult to reduce in the short term and product demand that is highly variable and difficult to forecast. Additionally, Intel is in the process of transitioning to its next generation of products on 32nm process technology, and there could be execution issues associated with these changes, including product defects and errata along with lower than anticipated manufacturing yields. Revenue and the gross margin percentage are affected by the timing of new Intel product introductions and the demand for and market acceptance of Intel’s products; actions taken by Intel’s competitors, including product offerings and introductions, marketing programs and pricing pressures and Intel’s response to such actions; defects or disruptions in the supply of materials or resources; and Intel’s ability to respond quickly to technological developments and to incorporate new features into its products.
• The gross margin percentage could vary significantly from expectations based on changes in revenue levels; product mix and pricing; start-up costs, including costs associated with the new 32nm process technology; variations in inventory valuation, including variations related to the timing of qualifying products for sale; excess or obsolete inventory; manufacturing yields; changes in unit costs; impairments of long-lived assets, including manufacturing, assembly/test and intangible assets; the timing and execution of the manufacturing ramp and associated costs; and capacity utilization.
• Expenses, particularly certain marketing and compensation expenses, as well as restructuring and asset impairment charges, vary depending on the level of demand for Intel’s products and the level of revenue and profits.
• The tax rate expectation is based on current tax law and current expected income. The tax rate may be affected by the jurisdictions in which profits are determined to be earned and taxed; changes in the estimates of credits, benefits and deductions; the resolution of issues arising from tax audits with various tax authorities, including payment of interest and penalties; and the ability to realize deferred tax assets.
• Gains or losses from equity securities and interest and other could vary from expectations depending on gains or losses realized on the sale or exchange of securities; gains or losses from equity method investments; impairment charges related to debt securities as well as equity and other investments; interest rates; cash balances; and changes in fair value of derivative instruments.
• The majority of our non-marketable equity investment portfolio balance is concentrated in companies in the flash memory market segment, and declines in this market segment or changes in management’s plans with respect to our investments in this market segment could result in significant impairment charges, impacting restructuring charges as well as gains/losses on equity investments and interest and other.
• Intel’s results could be impacted by adverse economic, social, political and physical/infrastructure conditions in countries where Intel, its customers or its suppliers operate, including military conflict and other security risks, natural disasters, infrastructure disruptions, health concerns and fluctuations in currency exchange rates.
• Intel’s results could be affected by the timing of closing of acquisitions and divestitures.
• Intel’s results could be affected by adverse effects associated with product defects and errata (deviations from published specifications), and by litigation or regulatory matters involving intellectual property, stockholder, consumer, antitrust and other issues, such as the litigation and regulatory matters described in Intel’s SEC reports. An unfavorable ruling could include monetary damages or an injunction prohibiting us from manufacturing or selling one or more products, precluding particular business practices, impacting our ability to design our products, or requiring other remedies such as compulsory licensing of intellectual property.

A detailed discussion of these and other factors that could affect Intel’s results is included in Intel’s SEC filings, including the report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 26, 2009.

Earnings Webcast

Intel will hold a public webcast at 2:30 p.m. PDT today on its Investor Relations Web site at www.intc.com. A webcast replay and MP3 download will also be made available on the site.

Intel plans to report its earnings for the second quarter of 2010 on Tuesday, July 13, 2010. Immediately following the earnings report, the company plans to publish a commentary by Stacy J. Smith, vice president and chief financial officer at www.intc.com/results.cfm. A public webcast of Intel’s earnings conference call will follow at 2:30 p.m. PDT at www.intc.com.

Intel [NASDAQ: INTC], the world leader in silicon innovation, develops technologies, products and initiatives to continually advance how people work and live. Additional information about Intel is available at www.intel.com/pressroom and blogs.intel.com

Intel, the Intel logo, Intel Xeon, Intel Core, and Intel Atom are trademarks of Intel Corporation in the United States and other countries.

* Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.

INTEL CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS DATA
(In millions, except per share amounts)
				Three Months Ended
				March 27,			March 28,
				2010			2009
NET REVENUE				$	10,299		$	7,145
Cost of sales					3,770			3,907
GROSS MARGIN					6,529			3,238
Research and development					1,564			1,317
Marketing, general and administrative					1,514			1,198
R&D AND MG&A					3,078			2,515
Restructuring and asset impairment charges					–			74
Amortization of acquisition-related intangibles and costs					3			2
OPERATING EXPENSES					3,081			2,591
OPERATING INCOME					3,448			647
Gains (losses) on equity investments, net					(31)			(113)
Interest and other, net					29			95
INCOME BEFORE TAXES					3,446			629
Provision for taxes					1,004			–
NET INCOME				$	2,442		$	629
BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE				$	0.44		$	0.11
DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE				$	0.43		$	0.11
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING:
	BASIC				5,529			5,573
	DILUTED				5,681			5,634

INTEL CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY BALANCE SHEET DATA
(In millions)
			March 27,			Dec. 26,
			2010			2009
CURRENT ASSETS
	Cash and cash equivalents		$	4,988		$	3,987
	Short-term investments			5,927			5,285
	Trading assets			5,427			4,648
	Accounts receivable, net			2,192			2,273
	Inventories:
		Raw materials		464			437
		Work in process		1,473			1,469
		Finished goods		1,049			1,029
				2,986			2,935
	Deferred tax assets			1,423			1,216
	Other current assets			781			813
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS				23,724			21,157
Property, plant and equipment, net				17,028			17,225
Marketable equity securities				926			773
Other long-term investments				4,326			4,179
Goodwill				4,452			4,421
Other long-term assets				5,317			5,340
	TOTAL ASSETS		$	55,773		$	53,095
CURRENT LIABILITIES
	Short-term debt		$	330		$	172
	Accounts payable			1,912			1,883
	Accrued compensation and benefits			1,377			2,448
	Accrued advertising			843			773
	Deferred income on shipments to distributors			653			593
	Income taxes payable			916			86
	Other accrued liabilities			2,881			1,636
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES				8,912			7,591
Long-term income taxes payable				174			193
Long-term debt				2,052			2,049
Other long-term liabilities				1,735			1,558
Stockholders’ equity:
	Preferred stock			–			–
	Common stock and capital in excess of par value			15,466			14,993
	Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)			414			393
	Retained earnings			27,020			26,318
TOTAL STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY				42,900			41,704
	TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY		$	55,773		$	53,095

INTEL CORPORATION
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION
(In millions)
		Q1 2010		Q4 2009		Q1 2009
GEOGRAPHIC REVENUE:
	Asia-Pacific	$5,888		$5,964		$3,647
		57%		57%		51%
	Americas	$1,906		$2,088		$1,510
		18%		20%		21%
	Europe	$1,404		$1,524		$1,273
		14%		14%		18%
	Japan	$1,101		$993		$715
		11%		9%		10%
CASH INVESTMENTS:
Cash and short-term investments		$10,915		$9,272		$7,792
Trading assets – marketable debt securities (1)		5,427		4,648		2,521
Total cash investments		$16,342		$13,920		$10,313
TRADING ASSETS:
Trading assets – equity securities
	offsetting deferred compensation (2)	–		–		$286
Total trading assets – sum of 1+2		$5,427		$4,648		$2,807
SELECTED CASH FLOW INFORMATION:
Depreciation		$1,080		$1,172		$1,208
Share-based compensation		$248		$200		$213
Amortization of intangibles		$61		$89		$62
Capital spending		($928)		($1,081)		($1,509)
Investments in non-marketable equity instruments		($45)		($85)		($41)
Proceeds from sales of shares to employees, tax benefit & other		$230		$36		$247
Dividends paid		($870)		($774)		($779)
Net cash received/(used) for divestitures/acquisitions		($37)		–		–
EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE INFORMATION:
Weighted average common shares outstanding – basic		5,529		5,522		5,573
Dilutive effect of employee equity incentive plans		101		77		10
Dilutive effect of convertible debt		51		51		51
Weighted average common shares outstanding – diluted		5,681		5,650		5,634
STOCK BUYBACK:
Cumulative shares repurchased (in billions)		3.4		3.4		3.3
Remaining dollars authorized for buyback (in billions)		$5.7		$5.7		$7.4
OTHER INFORMATION:
Employees (in thousands)		79.9		79.8		82.5

INTEL CORPORATION
SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATING GROUP RESULTS
($ in millions)
				Three Months Ended
				Q1 2010		Q4 2009		Q1 2009
Net Revenue
PC Client Group
	Microprocessor revenue			$ 5,913		$ 5,881		$ 4,249
	Chipset, motherboard and other revenue			1,761		1,877		1,112
				7,674		7,758		5,361
Data Center Group
	Microprocessor revenue			1,552		1,703		1,012
	Chipset, motherboard and other revenue			319		323		252
				1,871		2,026		1,264
Other Intel Architecture groups				375		410		326
Intel Architecture group revenue				9,920		10,194		6,951
Other operating groups				369		367		149
Corporate				10		8		45
TOTAL NET REVENUE				$ 10,299		$ 10,569		$ 7,145
Operating income (loss)
PC Client Group				$ 3,143		$ 3,340		$ 701
Data Center Group				835		972		266
Other Intel Architecture groups				(29)		12		(76)
Intel Architecture group operating income				3,949		4,324		891
Other operating groups				(21)		(22)		(153)
Corporate				(480)		(1,805)		(91)
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME				$ 3,448		$ 2,497		$ 647

INTEL CORPORATION
SUPPLEMENTAL RECONCILIATIONS OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP RESULTS
In addition to disclosing financial results calculated in accordance with United States (U.S.) generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), this earnings release contains non-GAAP financial measures that exclude the charge incurred in the fourth quarter of 2009 as a result of the settlement agreement with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in the amount of $1.25 billion. These non-GAAP measures also exclude the associated impacts of the AMD settlement on our tax provision.
The non-GAAP financial measures disclosed by the company should not be considered a substitute for, or superior to, financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP, and the financial results calculated in accordance with GAAP and reconciliations from these results should be carefully evaluated. Management believes the non-GAAP financial measures are appropriate for both its own assessment of, and to show the reader, how our performance compares to other periods. Set forth below are reconciliations of the non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.
				(In millions, except per-share amounts)
			Three Months Ended
			March 27,			Dec. 26,				March 28,
			2010			2009				2009
GAAP OPERATING INCOME			$	3,448		$	2,497			$	647
	Adjustment for AMD settlement:			–			1,250				–
OPERATING INCOME EXCLUDING AMD SETTLEMENT			$	3,448		$	3,747			$	647
GAAP NET INCOME			$	2,442		$	2,282			$	629
	Adjustment for:
		AMD settlement		–			1,250				–
		Income tax impacts		–			(438	)			–
NET INCOME EXCLUDING AMD SETTLEMENT			$	2,442		$	3,094			$	629
GAAP DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE			$	0.43		$	0.40			$	0.11
	Adjustment for:
		AMD settlement		–			0.22				–
		Income tax impacts		–			(0.07	)			–
DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE EXCLUDING AMD SETTLEMENT			$	0.43		$	0.55			$	0.11

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• How Intel Screwed Itself Out Of The iPad Revolution
• How Google, Apple, And Other Household Brands Came Up With Their Names
• Intel Plans $2 Billion Fund To Invest In U.S. Companies

FoMoCo announced today that it is launched a new consumer site called “Your Ideas,” a place where visitors can submit, share, review and rate each other’s automotive ideas. Think of it as a suggestion box for Ford executives to dig through once in a while to see what consumers are demanding from the Dearborn automaker.

“Ford continues to push the envelope when it comes to engaging consumers in what’s next for Ford cars and trucks,” said Mark Fields, Ford president, The Americas. “We are going beyond traditional consumer market research, studies and focus groups. Ford is turning to the social Web as an innovative way of generating new vehicle feature ideas customers really want and value.”

Check out the site over here.

Make the jump for the press release.

Press Release:

FORD ENGAGES CUSTOMERS IN “WHAT’S NEXT,” TAKING COMPANY’S OPEN INNOVATION MODEL TO NEXT LEVEL

* Ford launches “Your Ideas” on its interactive consumer site, The Ford story (www.thefordstory.com), welcoming visitors to submit, share, review and rate each other’s automotive feature ideas
* The Web portal is Ford’s latest demonstration of collaborative efforts to engage ‘automotive outsiders’ to help share ideas, develop the next must-have technologies, and drive the spirit of open innovation
* Ford has been actively modernizing its Advanced Product Marketing, Planning and Innovation Research community to include suppliers, universities and more non-automotive technology experts

DEARBORN, Mich., April 13, 2010 – Ford is tapping into one of the world’s greatest and vast resources – consumers – to discover the next-best automotive ideas and technologies.

Marking today’s opening of the SAE World Congress, Mark Fields, Ford president, The Americas, announced the launch of a new initiative that furthers the company’s commitment to open innovation. The new “Your Ideas” section of The Ford Story (www.thefordstory.com), the brand’s interactive consumer Web site, will invite visitors to submit, share and suggest ideas and technologies they believe fit in the automotive space.

The pilot session of “Your Ideas” gives consumers the ability to participate in a community-based setting where they can review and rate posted ideas and track what people think about their own suggestions. Ideas that receive the most “thumbs ups” from viewers will be elevated to a most-popular idea list and reviewed by Ford’s Advanced Product Marketing and Planning teams.

The “Your Ideas” forum covers the automotive gamut, soliciting consumer suggestions on categories ranging from vehicle connectivity and comfort and convenience to fuel economy to performance and safety.

Space for sharing
Since The Ford Story went live in 2008, the site has logged more than 2.6 million visits, offering passionate Ford owners and those new to the brand the opportunity to post their favorite Ford story, photos and videos; comment about the company’s latest news and products; locate all of the company’s social networking accounts; watch videos and more.

“The Ford Story has connected with customers because it’s a place where Ford is sharing what is happening with the company is a more open and transparent way,” Fields said. “Through the site, people are telling us they feel a new unity with Ford because they can share their thoughts, stories and insights and take part in two-way dialogue with the people behind our products.”

The announcement of the new idea exchange portal and Ford’s increased effort to directly engage customers in the ‘What’s Next?’ conversation dovetails with the 2010 SAE World Congress in Detroit, which is themed “Ecollaboration.”

Fields helped promote the theme of the premier engineering industry conference on Tuesday morning, speaking about how Ford is embracing greater collaboration with not only customers but other “automotive outsiders” as it develops the high-impact products that customers want and value.

“What a better time or place than World Congress to discuss how Ford is committed to working together toward innovation?” said Fields.

“This conference is one of the biggest opportunities of the year for the exchange of ideas, providing our engineers the chance to evaluate new technologies and services from companies and sources they haven’t worked with before,” he added.

Opening doors
Ford’s overarching adoption of the open innovation model made popular by social media, software developers and technology companies has already generated impressive relationships with a growing list of who’s who in the worlds of academia, suppliers, consumer electronics and information technology. Just as impressive are the results and ongoing research projects attached to these relationships.

Ford is currently working with the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor, for instance, on the “American Journey 2.0” advanced research project to help define the next frontier of in-car communications. The student collaboration is aimed at responsible development of social networking apps for the car and could help Ford model future iterations of Ford SYNC.

Participating students will show off their course work this spring on a developmental software platform dubbed “Fiestaware” built with the help of Microsoft and powered by Intel. Student teams will compete by programming applications that showcase innovative ways to access social networks for contextually-relevant data, plus share vehicle-specific information that could help others. The winning student team will make a road trip to the 2010 Maker Faire, the world’s largest do-it-yourself convention, driving a new Ford Fiesta testing their new apps along the way.

Along with U of M, Ford also has strategic alliances with MIT as well as universities across the globe, including two of China’s most prestigious and recognized, Shanghai Jiaotong University and Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, where joint work with aluminum alloys and other advanced materials is being conducted. A formal Ford strategic alliance with The Boeing Company has also existed for the past 15 years, resulting in numerous and valuable collaborative efforts. Boeing, in fact, recently announced that it’s ready to build its first prototype of Phantom Eye, a high altitude long endurance unmanned aircraft powered by two Ford-developed hydrogen-powered Duratec 4-cylinder engines.

Ford has also opened its doors wider to suppliers. Two years ago, Ford created the Joint Technology Framework, which provides designated suppliers special access to Ford intellectual properties so they can develop products for future commercial use. As a result, Ford is making significant progress in several key automotive research areas, including ultrasonic welding, alternative bonding technologies and new processes for reducing wheel weight.

Newer to the mix is Ford’s aggressive outreach to consumer electronic and technology experts such as Microsoft and Nuance Communications as the company looks for new and innovative ways to leverage existing technologies and cloud computing services by integrating them into the car. These relationships helped Ford build its successful in-car connectivity platform, Ford SYNC, which has now become the operating system behind all-new MyFord Touch driver interface.

“Innovation has always played a major role at Ford,” said Gerhard Schmidt, Ford chief technical officer and vice president, Research and Advanced Engineering. “We don’t believe that any one company or industry has a monopoly on good ideas; we embrace the fact that every good idea for our customers doesn’t have to start with us.”

– By: Omar Rana

Indices:

• DJIA: Up 13.4 points to 11,019.
• NASDAQ: Up 8.1 points to 2465.
• S&P 500: Up 0.7 points to 1197.

Today’s biggest gainers on the S&P 500:

• DeVry Inc (DV): $71.73 / +10.25%
• Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co (GT): $13.95 / +7.64%
• Frontier Communications Corp (FTR): $7.79 / +4.85%

Today’s biggest losers on the S&P 500:

• Avon Products Inc (AVP): $31.98 / -8.00%
• Huntington Bancshares Inc (HBAN): $5.69 / -5.64%
• Regions Financial Corp (RF): $8.34 / -4.58%

Commodities:

• Oil: Down 0.28% or $0.24 to $84.10 a barrel.
• Gold: Down 0.71% or $8.30 to $1153.90 an ounce.
• Silver: Down 1.03% or $0.19 to $18.23 an ounce.

Now here are the stories you need to know:

• The number of small businesses can’t stop freaking out over the economy.
• Zerohedge posts JP Morgan’s death knoll analysis of Ambac Financial Group (ABK).
• These ProShares Short ETFs will be having a reverse split next week according to Jesse’s Cafe Americain.

Join the conversation about this story »

Producing a total of 661-hp from its 6.0L twin-turbo V12, the Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG Black Series is far from anything but one of the most ridiculously fastest cars to come out of Stuttgart. However, if you’re German tuner Brabus, than too much horsepower is never enough.

Click here for prices on the 2011 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class.

The tuner has created a one-off modified SL 65 AMG Black Series known as the Vanish, which now produces 789-hp from its 6.0L twin-turbo V12. The extra increase in power comes from larger turbochargers and mating the engine to a quicker gearbox and exhaust.

The model was produced for someone special in Dubai. Oh and of course, everything looks better in matte-black and the Vanish’s exterior offers just that.

Brabus Vanish (Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG Black Series):

– By: Kap Shah

Source: Autogespot

Filed under: Hybrid, Hatchback, Toyota, Electric, Quick Spin

It’s been two-and-a-half years since we last got behind the wheel of a plug-in Toyota Prius. The name is the same, but today’s plug-in Prius is a totally different vehicle, and it was high time to see what changes Toyota has made to their plug-in hybrid (PHEV) in its ongoing effort to slowly get the car ready for the U.S. market.

Back in late 2007, the prototype had a NiMH battery pack and the converted vehicle was based on the second-generation model. The new fleet of PHEV Priuses in San Diego this week as part of Toyota’s Sustainable Mobility Seminar are converted 2010 third-generation models, featuring upgraded lithium-ion packs.

Toyota has brought the PHEV Prius fleet to the U.S. to begin a two-year test and monitoring period. The vehicles are equipped with transmitters from Qualcomm that record not only driver behavior, but also how often the car is plugged in. We’ll have more information soon with technical details about the mules and an explanation of Toyota’s plans to test and sell the long-awaited plug-in hatchback for 2012. But before then, we wanted to grab some seat time.

The short version is that driving a plug-in Prius is almost exactly like driving a standard one, except that it remains quieter for a longer period as the engine is off more often (during short distances) thanks to a larger battery pack and improved all-electric performance. Acceleration, handling, braking – everything feels awfully familiar. Make the jump to find out more, including how you can now go up to 64 mph without using a single drop of fuel.

Photos by Sebastian Blanco / Copyright (C)2010 Weblogs, Inc.

Continue reading Quick Spin: 2010 Plug-in Prius prototype is just like your mother’s Toyota hybrid, but better

Quick Spin: 2010 Plug-in Prius prototype is just like your mother’s Toyota hybrid, but better originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

There’s a simple way to balance the budget in California, Greece, and everywhere: outsource, privatize, and sell.

Schwarzenegger is taking the lead with a plan to sell a 20-year lease on 11 office buildings — going on sale tomorrow. The state plans to generate around $2 billion for the buildings, which they will continue to occupy.

The dirty secret in Sacramento is that the private sector could solve all their fiscal problems. “In an ideal world, we might well want to outsource a lot more,” said Department of General Services spokesperson Jeffrey Young.

California is putting other buildings up for sale outright, and Connecticut and Arizona may follow suit.

Nevermind that commercial real estate prices are near record lows. The states are desperate.

Check out the state buildings going on sale now >

CALIFORNIA: Judge Joseph Rattigan Building

20-year lease: $14 million

Location: Santa Rosa

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Emergency Management Agency

20-year lease: $40 million

Location: Rancho Cordova

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Department of Justice Building

20-year lease: $66 million

Location: Sacramento

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Public Utilities Commission Building

20-year lease: $82 million

Location: San Francisco

 

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Junipero Sierra State Building

20-year lease: $92 million

Location: Los Angeles

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Sacramento’s Attorney General Building

20-year lease: $132 million

Location: Sacramento

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Ronald Reagan State Building

20-year lease: $164 million

Location: Los Angeles

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Elihu Harris Building

20-year lease: $170 million

Location: Oakland

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Civic Center

20-year lease: $300 million

Location: San Francisco

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Franchise Tax Board Complex

20-year lease: $460 million

Location: Sacramento

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Capitol Area East End Complex

20-year lease: $480 million

Location: Sacramento

Note: California plans to earn $2 billion for the lease of 11 office buildings. We estimate building lease prices based on building NOI as a fraction of total NOI.

CALIFORNIA: Orange County Fairground

SALE: $56.5 million***

Location: Costa Mesa

***This was the winning bid at a March auction. The state refused the bid, however, as it was hoping for something closer to $180 million. Now they are in negotiations to sell the iconic fairgrounds to Costa Mesa.

CONNECTICUT: Nathan Hale Hall Building

SALE: $300,000***

Location: Windham

It’s not just the Golden State. Connecticut put up dozens of properties up for sale, hoping to raise $60 million through FY2011.

***The state auctioned this former hotel, now vacant, in December and received no acceptable bids. They want around $300k, according to Windham Today.

CONNECTICUT: Armory

SALE: $306,000

Location: Bristol

A pair of lawyers put down a $306k bid for an unused armory this week. They plan to convert the dilapidated building into a restaurant and in-line skating center & game room, according to Hartford Courant.

CONNECTICUT: Seaside Regional Center

SALE: $7.1 million***

Location: Waterford

***The state wants more, but they may be bound to the terms of a suspended sale from 2007. Developer Mark Steiner wants to redevelop the historic buildings into condominiums, according to The Day.

 

Photo: Explorer Productions

ARIZONA: House & Senate buildings

20-year lease: $18.2 million apiece***

Location: Phoenix

Arizona generated more than $735 million in January for selling state properties.

***SOLD. Lease estimate from Phoenix New Times.

ARIZONA: Executive Tower (main government offices)

20-year lease: $39.5 million***

Location: Phoenix

***SOLD. Lease estimate from Phoenix New Times.

ARIZONA: Arizona State Hospital

20-year lease: $176.1 million***

Location: Phoenix

Once called the Insane Asylum of Arizona, the building remains active as a mental hospital.

***SOLD. Lease estimate from Phoenix New Times.

AMERICA: 15 national parks

Sale: $2.4 billion

Location: Nationwide

Don’t forget Rep. Richard Pombo’s plan to sell 15 national parks to the mining industry. Pombo (R-Calif.) proposed the sale in 2005 as an alternative to drilling in Alaska (presumably, he supported both ideas).

But if the national debt grows unmanageable levels, then why not sell the national parks, historic sites, and monuments. It’s either that or close the parks and cut department budgets to shreds.

Don’t miss…

15 Mayors Who Must Shred The Budget To Save Their Bankrupt Cities

Join the conversation about this story »

Konami has already announced Saw 2, but trying to imagine the nasty things you have to do in the sequel just won’t cut it. Here to take us through all that today is the game’s producer and

Nintendo of America has announced a new springtime DSi bundle for North America. More details past the jump.

A few weeks ago, we wrote about how Ambac Financial Group (ABK) had a liquidity problem and was in default on billions of dollars in debt. The stock, as expected, tanked – shooting down to penny stock levels.

Then, on April 8th, despite a delay in their 10-K filing and statement of earnings for 2009, Ambac came out with Q4 earnings of $1.93 per share, compared to a Wall Street consensus of -$3.34. The Street was stunned and just like that, ABK flew up overnight and has continued to climb, especially yesterday when it shot up over 100%.

But today, after shares soaring more than 40%, JP Morgan warned that, despite the killer Q4 earnings report, Ambac is still a dog with fleas and that their 10-K filing will support their belief the company has no equity value according to The Fly On The Wall. Thus Ambac began to decline as investor confidence was wiped out. The stock is now down 11% at the $2.00 range.

And even more killer is the amount of shares being traded in this stock. Ambac has 287.6 million shares floating on the market with an average volume of 34.5 million shares traded every day. Today alone, nearly 570 million shares of Ambac have been traded which is absolutely nuts. This is a liquid stock in the truest sense of the term. Investors will no doubt see volume taper off in coming days but the stock won’t calm down completely until Ambac puts out the ever-important 10-K.

Check out the chart below showing what’s happened over the past five days:

Join the conversation about this story »

Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, whose experiments with how people value “free” we’ve discussed before, has a fascinating column in the Harvard Business Review, explaining why companies don’t experiment, where the basic answer is that they’re afraid that some consumers will get a less acceptable experience during the experiment compared to others. For example, Ariely had worked for a while with a company to get them to put in place a series of experiments to see if offering things for “free” worked — but eventually the company balked:

Several months later, right before we were due to go live, we had a meeting about the final details of the experiment–this time with a bigger entourage from marketing. One of the new members noted that because we were extending differing offers, some customers might buy a product that was not ideal for them, spend too much money, or get a worse deal overall than others. He was correct, of course. In any experiment, someone gets the short end of the stick. Take clinical medical trials, I said to the team. When testing chemotherapy treatments, some patients suffer more so that, down the road, others might suffer less. I hoped this put it in perspective. Fortunately, I said, price testing household products requires far less suffering than chemo trials.

But I could tell I was losing them. In a sense, I was impressed. It was a beautiful human sentiment they were conveying: We care about all customers and don’t want to treat any one of them unfairly. A debate ensued among the group: Are we willing to sacrifice some customers “just” to learn how the new pricing approaches work?

They hedged. They asked me what I thought the best approach was. I told them that I was willing to share my intuition but that intuition is a remarkably bad thing to rely on. Only an experiment gives you the evidence you need. In the end, it wasn’t enough to convince them, and they called off the project.

I’m not actually convinced Ariely is correct on the reasoning here. It might not be this “beautiful human sentiment” where they “don’t want to treat any [customer] unfairly.” I suspect that it’s the same reason why dynamic pricing often gets shunned by companies: because if customers find out that someone else got a better deal, even if they were happy with the original deal they suddenly change their minds and believe they got ripped off. It’s because we tend to judge things relatively, rather than in absolutes, and companies that have been caught charging different prices to different customers often have found that the backlash is worse than the benefits of differential pricing.

However, it is interesting that many companies fear experimenting and prefer to just make a decision and go with it. I think this is less true in some tech companies. Google, for example, is infamous in their ridiculous level of experimenting and detailed A-B testing on things before going live with a final decision. But for companies that are worried about how any sort of “experiment” is viewed by consumers, you could see them being afraid to even try a concept like “free.” I’m not convinced this is really a strong enough effect to keep companies from using “free,” but it could be one explanation for why legacy companies are often so resistant to the idea.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story