A year ago, no one, absolutely no one, would have predicted a bright future for Detroit's automakers. So much for predictions.

Motor City's carmakers all have a new mojo going on, and for good reason. Let's count the ways:

Ford Motor, clearly the furthest along in reinventing itself as a global car company, is the second most-profitable automaker in the world. General Motors is making money too, and recently did a successful share offering. Chrysler, such a basket in 2009 that the U.S. government and bankruptcy courts simply handed over management control to Italy's Fiat, is launching 16 new or refurbished models this year and posting profits on an operating basis despite being saddled with billions in government loans at an exorbitant interest cost.

No, no, Motown collectively is not all the way back to the glory days and never will be. We should all be realistic about that. Yet there is growing evidence to suggest Ford, General Motors and Chrysler are on the right track. Consider:

Ford

Think about this number: $6.3 billion (all figures in U.S. dollars). That's how much Ford Motor has earned so far this year and it means the Dearborn, Mich., automaker is now among the most profitable car companies in the world.

Yes, that's correct. Ford Motor, which lost $14.8 billion in 2008, now trails only Germany's Volkswagen Group among the top auto earners in the entire industry. Through three quarters VW has earned $6.6 billion at current exchange rates.

However, VW has warned in a statement that growth "will not continue as strongly in the fourth quarter." Ford, on the other hand, plans to boost fourth-quarter vehicle output in North America by 20,000 units, an increase of 3.5 per cent. Ford may yet win the title of world's most profitable automaker, depending on what happens in the fourth quarter.

"A few years ago, we were a discount brand in the smaller and medium-sized vehicles," Ford CEO Alan Mulally said during a conference call to discuss record third quarter earnings of $1.7 billion. "The response we're getting now in the Mustang, the Taurus and the Fusion is that these are world-class, and people really want them. We're on a positive and stable path for (pricing) values in vehicles."

The term "pricing values" is industry-speak for the ability to charge more for vehicles -- because buyers really want them. For instance, at an average price of $17,020 the Ford Fiesta subcompact is commanding about the same average price in the U.S. as the Honda Civic and the Toyota Corolla, but without ladling on the heavy incentives Honda and Toyota are offering. The story is exactly the same in Canada, with the average Fiesta transaction price at nearly $20,000.

"We have moved into a new chapter for Ford: building cars and trucks people really want and value, and continuously improving our quality and productivity," Mulally said in an e-mail to the New York Times.

General Motors

Okay, okay, the big news here was GM's much anticipated and endlessly hyped initial public offering, post-bankruptcy. It happened last month and as a result, Canadian taxpayers are poised to get back a big chunk if not all of their investment in the General.

Moreover, it looks like the Ontario and Canadian governments prudently declined to increase the number of shares they would sell in the IPO. Bloomberg reports that our Canadian governments stuck with the amount announced Nov. 3, U.S. filings and now stand to benefit significantly if GM shares rise from the initial $33 (U.S.) a share.

That means Canada will recover more of its investment in the bailout than if it sold extra shares in the IPO, as our government had been pushed to do by the U.S. Government. Canada and the province of Ontario control 11.7 percent, the U.S. has a 61 percent stake and a health fund controls 17.5 percent.

People like me often engage in a lot of politician-bashing, but in this case let's give the pols their due. They appear to have managed a nice balance "between being part of the IPO, which we have always said we would be, and at the same time doing so in a way where we are going to chunk it out over time to try and maximize taxpayer protection," said Industry Minister Tony Clement said Monday.

You and I may yet get back all of the US$7.1 billion the Canadian government provided in the U.S.-led GM bailout in June 2009; Ontario provided US$3.5 billion. In exchange, our governments received 175 million shares, and before the IPO $1.1 billion has been repaid.

For the record, the governments need an average price across all of their shares of about $54.25 to break even, while the common shares carry a book value for the Government of Canada of about $15 a share right now. Canada also has preferred shares in GM. When last we looked, GM's shares were trading in the mid-$30 range and stable. Now what's needed is more good news on profits and products.

Chrysler

Last month Morgan Stanley analyst Stuart Pearson told investors, "Chrysler May prove to be one of 2011's most surprising success stories." Shortly afterwards, the Chrysler Group posted an operating profit of $239 million in the third quarter (all figures in U.S. dollars).

Surprise.

And Chrysler raised its outlook for the balance of the year. The company expects stronger sales and even better operating results. Not bad when you think Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy just 18 months ago.

This week we're learning a lot about where Chrysler is going under CEO Sergio Marchionne, one of Canada's most important automotive exports. We're also learning quite a bit about what the Auburn Hills, Mich., car company has been doing these past few months.

Chrysler, in fact, has stayed largely mum for a long time. Company officials say they're going to let the new products do the talking. This is in sharp contrast to General Motors, which has been relentlessly trumpeting its impending IPO (initial public offering).

Chrysler is a far different case than GM, however. Chrysler got a government bailout, but not the same one as GM. Governments in Canada and the U.S. took equity, or stock, in GM (more than 60 per cent), while in Chrysler they took less than 10 per cent equity.

Chrysler's aid came in the form of more than $8.0 billion in loans that carry crushing interest rates of more than 10 per cent. Fiat has been promised an equity stake of up to 30 per cent for taking management control and Chrysler unions have also taken a large ownership stake.

The bailout has left Chrysler with massive interest costs. They are the reason the company on a net basis lost $453 million on revenues of $31 billion during the first three quarters of the year. If Chrysler's bailout had been interest-free, if it had been essentially along the lines of GM's, the company would have made about $450 million in net profit this year.

During a recent visit to Auburn Hills, senior Chrysler officials told me they are anxious to renegotiate some of the costly debt because it's preventing Chrysler from showing decent net income. Ultimately, the company will come to market with its own IPO, but not until it's been profitable on an operating basis for a year or so. At least that's what the sharp auto analysts think.

The profits will come (or not come) from the 16 all-new or redesigned models Chrysler will launch in the next few months. Among the more interesting offerings will be an all-new Dodge Durango and Charger. The Durango SUV shares its platform with the Jeep Grand Cherokee and traces its roots to a new Mercedes-Benz M-Class. The Charger looks like a real, well-considered performance sedan, not the thrown together car it replaces.

If Chrysler manages to steer the course of a full turnaround, it will be a far more impressive business story than a GM return to profitability and investor-grade status. Chrysler will have done it paying its way using loans with exorbitant interest costs.

So as the year wraps up on the auto industry -- and with a nod to Mark Twain -- reports of Detroit's utter demise may have been greatly exaggerated.

What is behind the turnaround of Detroit's automakers?

Ford, General Motors and Chrysler all are showing positive signs in a challenging economy. While the three are at different stages of their turnarounds -- with Ford clearly ahead of the pack based on profitability, sales and awards -- there is little doubt Detroit-based auto makers have recognized the need to manage costs and build vehicles real customers want to own.

Here's a look at some of the key vehicles coming from the three later this year. These are the offerings which will play a dramatic role in determining the success or failure of these restructured companies.

Ford

Fiesta: The first real test of Ford's plan to use global engineering for cars sold in the North America. Style, advanced features and class-leading fuel economy make the Fiesta appealing. The question: how much will Canadians and Americans pay for a subcompact Ford?

Ford Explorer: A 21st-century replacement for the SUV behind Ford's profits in the 1990s. Question: Will the new Explorer sell in numbers based on high fuel economy with the room and capability that made the original a hit?

General Motors

Chevrolet Cruze: GM's latest attempt to make money on a small car. The Cruze promises excellent fuel economy and near-midsize passenger room in a compact. It could be a hit. GM, however, must sell big numbers without the cut-rate pricing of previous compacts like the Chevy Cobalt and Cavalier.

Buick Regal: This sporty midsize sedan must appeal to well-educated and affluent Lexus and Acura buyers. If not, Buick's future -- and GM's new four-brand strategy -- looks shaky.


Chrysler

Jeep Grand Cherokee: The latest version of Jeep's upscale icon has looks, technology and prestige on its side. It must overcome a sense that SUVs are out of fashion and must generate cash to pay for investment in future Chrysler vehicles.

Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger: Striking new models of two great cars. They promise style, comfort and performance. Their biggest challenges may include fuel economy and consumer concern about Chrysler's survival.

Fiat 500: The first car Chrysler will build for its Italian partner, the 500 is an early test of the automakers' alliance. Europeans love the funky little retro car. But buyers on this continent have neither Europe's history with the original post-World War II Fiat 500, nor its track record of buying cars shorter than a Mini Cooper.