|
|
|
|
 |
CarPhreakD
 |
|
owequitit wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
This is merely one cobblestone in Acura's path to failure and irrelevance.
Acura has a transverse FWD platform because they CHOSE to. In fact, they chose to junk a multi-million dollar longitudinal platform because they wanted to be cheap. The problem with luxury brands is less about having XXX product with a feature set matching XXX brand than it is about not compromising. People have no problem paying more money for a product that executes. However, they are not so stupid as to spend money on something that clearly doesn't maintain the standard of expectation. Many people might not know that the TL is FWD vs RWD, but they CAN tell that the front end is huge, the overhang is ugly, and the car itself is rather large for not a lot of space. It is a very nice car in many respects, but then again, so are its competitors.
Again, Audi provides a good contrast. Initially, Audi shared the platforms for its cars with the Passat (A4, A6) for the same reason Acura uses the Accord. However, they managed to provide more differentiation between product than Honda has, and they weren't afraid to take the money saved on the platform and spend it on things like interior, powertrain options and AWD across the whole line. They used these slightly cheaper derivative chassis to get the brand back in the game, because it allowed them to spend money in other areas. But rather than try to bank that money and pretend that Audi was on the same level as BMW and Merc, they put it back in the product with the hope that eventually Audi really WOULD be on the same level. Then, with the A8 they started to build unique platforms for their cars, that still used parts bin mechanicals, but put even more distance between Audi and VW. Finally, they switched the lower model VW's to different platforms entirely, with VW going transverse and Audi staying longitudinal. Now they spend a boatload of money on a longitudinal FWD platform that doesn't suck to look at proportionally. It did help weight, but more importantly, the cars now LOOK like real luxury cars without the massive overhang. Plus, with the total weight of the car, they removed roughly one 200lb person from the nose by moving the powertrain back. Now that they have unique platforms, have seperated the brands, upped the prestige of the core product, and built the mainstream lines that are consistent with an overall brand image, they can now start adding the cars that enthusiasts want because the core product is paying the bills.
Then you look at Acura, and they are now re-releasing an Accord based flagship that is down on power, down on prestige and doesn't even have the styling to compensate for it all. The TL doesn't know what it wants to be, the ZDX and ILX are so disconnected from their intended markets it is a joke, and there is no consistency in the brand image. How do the ILX, the FWD base TL, the TL SH-AWD and the RL all fit together? They don't. To top it off, Acura now has 4 models that sit right on top of each other again (RL and TL and ILX TSX). The RL might be fixed, but Acura's being hampered by Honda's need for transverse platforms and Honda being hampered by Acura's inability to seperate itself from Honda will continue until they can provide more definitive differentiation.
If Acura wants to be the new old person Buick, fine. But they need to be consistent. It isn't a wise decision, but it is better than what they are trying to do now, which has absolutely ZERO strategic approach.
|
Well, there is a cohesive strategy for once, but it didn't follow any of the common-sense thinking that we would have assumed Acura would follow. And certainly what we are seeing now is that Acura is sort of in a flux.
The problem is that the execution is still off. The SUVs for the most part look to be winners (though frankly I wish the RDX kept a SH-AWD option); but the sedans?? Ideally you would get rid of the TSX, for a clearly defined 3-sedan lineup. I feel that the RLX is "okay" because it once again debuts a very advanced concept (eSH-AWD)... question is pricing, interior space and the fact that it's still conservatively styled. The TLX evolution we'll have to wait and see, but if they cut out a bit of size and not mess up the styling, it could be a third gen TL all over again. Again, not top tier, but at this point it's impossible to expect Acura to compete over one generation.
The ILX is a frickin' mess. The concept was promising but what we got is a car that the Civic should have been in the first place.
I also think the longitudinal vs. transverse layout is overblown (and no, I don't want to get into a huge argument over it again). The proportions that Audi gets right, Acura could emulate with creative transaxle differential output. As I stated earlier, Audi has its own problems with weight distribution with its current longitudinal layouts, though it has tried to resolve that through each generation by moving the wheels forward.
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
This is merely one cobblestone in Acura's path to failure and irrelevance.
Acura has a transverse FWD platform because they CHOSE to. In fact, they chose to junk a multi-million dollar longitudinal platform because they wanted to be cheap. The problem with luxury brands is less about having XXX product with a feature set matching XXX brand than it is about not compromising. People have no problem paying more money for a product that executes. However, they are not so stupid as to spend money on something that clearly doesn't maintain the standard of expectation. Many people might not know that the TL is FWD vs RWD, but they CAN tell that the front end is huge, the overhang is ugly, and the car itself is rather large for not a lot of space. It is a very nice car in many respects, but then again, so are its competitors.
Again, Audi provides a good contrast. Initially, Audi shared the platforms for its cars with the Passat (A4, A6) for the same reason Acura uses the Accord. However, they managed to provide more differentiation between product than Honda has, and they weren't afraid to take the money saved on the platform and spend it on things like interior, powertrain options and AWD across the whole line. They used these slightly cheaper derivative chassis to get the brand back in the game, because it allowed them to spend money in other areas. But rather than try to bank that money and pretend that Audi was on the same level as BMW and Merc, they put it back in the product with the hope that eventually Audi really WOULD be on the same level. Then, with the A8 they started to build unique platforms for their cars, that still used parts bin mechanicals, but put even more distance between Audi and VW. Finally, they switched the lower model VW's to different platforms entirely, with VW going transverse and Audi staying longitudinal. Now they spend a boatload of money on a longitudinal FWD platform that doesn't suck to look at proportionally. It did help weight, but more importantly, the cars now LOOK like real luxury cars without the massive overhang. Plus, with the total weight of the car, they removed roughly one 200lb person from the nose by moving the powertrain back. Now that they have unique platforms, have seperated the brands, upped the prestige of the core product, and built the mainstream lines that are consistent with an overall brand image, they can now start adding the cars that enthusiasts want because the core product is paying the bills.
Then you look at Acura, and they are now re-releasing an Accord based flagship that is down on power, down on prestige and doesn't even have the styling to compensate for it all. The TL doesn't know what it wants to be, the ZDX and ILX are so disconnected from their intended markets it is a joke, and there is no consistency in the brand image. How do the ILX, the FWD base TL, the TL SH-AWD and the RL all fit together? They don't. To top it off, Acura now has 4 models that sit right on top of each other again (RL and TL and ILX TSX). The RL might be fixed, but Acura's being hampered by Honda's need for transverse platforms and Honda being hampered by Acura's inability to seperate itself from Honda will continue until they can provide more definitive differentiation.
If Acura wants to be the new old person Buick, fine. But they need to be consistent. It isn't a wise decision, but it is better than what they are trying to do now, which has absolutely ZERO strategic approach.
|
Well, there is a cohesive strategy for once, but it didn't follow any of the common-sense thinking that we would have assumed Acura would follow. And certainly what we are seeing now is that Acura is sort of in a flux.
The problem is that the execution is still off. The SUVs for the most part look to be winners (though frankly I wish the RDX kept a SH-AWD option); but the sedans?? Ideally you would get rid of the TSX, for a clearly defined 3-sedan lineup. I feel that the RLX is "okay" because it once again debuts a very advanced concept (eSH-AWD)... question is pricing, interior space and the fact that it's still conservatively styled. The TLX evolution we'll have to wait and see, but if they cut out a bit of size and not mess up the styling, it could be a third gen TL all over again. Again, not top tier, but at this point it's impossible to expect Acura to compete over one generation.
The ILX is a frickin' mess. The concept was promising but what we got is a car that the Civic should have been in the first place.
I also think the longitudinal vs. transverse layout is overblown (and no, I don't want to get into a huge argument over it again). The proportions that Audi gets right, Acura could emulate with creative transaxle differential output. As I stated earlier, Audi has its own problems with weight distribution with its current longitudinal layouts, though it has tried to resolve that through each generation by moving the wheels forward.
|
The problem is that Acura has been in a "state of flux" for over a decade now.
First, they were replacing the too expensive Legend platform with more reasonable cost platforms based on the Accord. Worked for the TL for 2 generations, but failed everything else. And they let the RL rot, and they killed the Integra. The CL was a flop (for two generations).
So then, they were going to be more aggressive, because they didn't want to be known as being soft and bland, which was the result of RL gen 1 and TL gen 1.
Enter the RSX and the 2nd Gen TL/TL Type S. So now, we have gone from ho-hum bland and boring Acura to quite a bit of spice. The TL platform was less than ideal now being based on the Accord, but they more than compensated for that with better refinement, content, price and ultimately the Type S model, which is still an awesome car.
Then, they STARTED to carry that forward with the 3rd gen TL which essentially did what any good MMC should have and picked up right where the last one left off, while addressing many of the complaints (namely styling). We had the promise of a dynamically pleasing RL as well (which was true, it was simply too small and too underpowered). The TSX cemented this era of desirable cars that looked clean and simple and punched above their price class in terms of driving enjoyment.
But alas, a couple years later, we have to go "tier 1" so we have to kill the RSX and have some god awful blind person start a new fashion trend centered on a cuisinart blade.
Mechanically, the TL picked up about where the last one left off, but my God that face! And it just didn't look proportioned right. The RL was a dud, the RSX was dead, and the TSX and TL were puffed out couch potatoes. Oh yeah, and the ZDX.
Now, we are back to this supposed "smart luxury" strategy, except that with the debut of the first car product, there is absolutely NOTHING smart about it. It is under-powered and overpriced. There is no telling what the TL holds, but I don't see the RL doing any better this generation than last. The styling is still relatively good, but also very generic. The eSHAWD (and even dumber name than SH-AWD) is a great concept, but it will prove to be like SH-AWD was to the RL. It won't fix the performance deficit, and most people probably aren't going to drive aggressively enough to notice. Not to mention a 310HP FWD FLAGSHIP! That is just a bad choice through and through. Even more underpowered, still relatively heavy, and FWD only? We don't know what the TL will do, what will happen to the TSX etc, so while you are correct that Acura is in flux, I don't see how that is any different than the last decade. Not to mention that the underlying trend over the last ten years is NOT an upward trajectory.
I will believe they have a cohesive brand strategy when I actually see it.
As for Audi, I am not saying they are anywhere near perfect. But I choose them specifically because their core strategy of working with a dynamically disadvantaged setup has actually worked out. It is proof that FWD based architecture is NOT the only problem with Acura. IMO, Acura could have a RWD car, and their strategy is so poor it wouldn't matter. Whereas Audi started with derivative cars, changed the styling dramatically, and then slowly built the prestige enough to get sales to the point where they would allow the platform development we are seeing. And yes, while the new platform is still relatively disadvantaged compared to cars like BMW, Audi has also been nailing things like suspension tuning and steering feel where BMW has been failing. These factors alone, coupled with improved distribution give Audi's cars actual subjective and objective dynamic credibility. The only dynamically credible car Acura has at the moment is the TL SH-AWD.
Also, styling wise, the transverse layout will not allow for the same styling proportions as Audi's unless Honda put the engines on the other side of the differential so they can push the axle forward. So far, this has not happened. As long as that occurs, the Audis will always be superior from a proportion standpoint, and it IS obvious in person despite the fact that the TL is significantly larger than the A4, and thus should mask it better. Granted, Acura was there in 1992, but while Acura failed to capitalize on it, Audi has not.
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
Nick Graves wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
Most front wheel drive cars are transverse mounted.
|
This is all far too basic;
The Honda Prelude demonstrated that with a well set-back transverse end-on tranny four and 4WS, such a layout can be made to handle beautifully and far better than most crude RWD layouts.
With a transverse or longitudinal vee engine, the mass necessarily sits farther ahead of the axle line, meaning an increased polar moment of inertia. Or dumbell effect.
The only correct place thus is to place the engine behind the axle line, as either with the M-B A-Klasse or inline as the Vigor/Inspire/Ascot/Legend did. Audi is a bit of a fudge, since the differential is far too close to the bellhousing and not nearer the harmonic damper, as was the case with the Hondas.
Unfortunately, Honda now has the same obsession with efficient packaging as made BMC cars roomy, ugly and thus unsaleable in the 1960s. Gooogle BMC 1800 Landcrab or Austin Maxi if you do not remember those cars.
|
My criticism of Audi's longitudinal layout is that the resulting engine is sitting way over the front axle. The FR weight distribution is currently very goofy.
But I really like the increasing attention to details that Audi offers in their vehicles, even if resale and reliability still seem fairly alien. These are the folks that not only pay attention to the interior, but also how underhood components look and are laid out. For the most part, the application of technology from Audi isn't bleeding edge (a la BMW), but smartly applied- such as their thermal management systems.
|
Exactly - but I think there's a Japanese stubbornness about NOT emulating Audi. Although I've long maintaned it's the only model for making sense of this ridiculous Acura thing.
|
RocketRon
|
|
Owe,
Not sure you would call this a strategy but Honda/Acura choose to go with cycles in past years.
Example:
B16A2 Si: Enthousiasts (More revs, less torque)
K20A3 Si: Consumers (More torque, less revs)
K20Z3 Si: Enthousiasts
K24Z7 Si: Consumers
I figure the next Enthusiast cycle begins with the release of the NSX 2.0. But really, by looking at past patterns, it should begin with the ILX coupe...
|
DCR
|
|
My FR-S arrived today...and it is the wrong one I didn't order. Somehow, they shipped an automatic and not the 6 Speed.
Not sure what this means now, as my dealer is frantically looking for where my car went, as there is someone else in the same boat who wanted the auto.
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
Shi'!
Hope they find it soon for you - I'd be on tenterhooks.
|
RocketRon
|
|
DCR,
Is that auto equipped with the paddle shifter?
|
DCR
|
|
|
Yes, that is the one. I'm not even going to entertain the auto version...I liked the feel of the 6 speed too much.
|
RocketRon
|
|
|
Did you try it? If that paddle shifter is anything close to the one in the LFA...
|
RyanDL
|
|
DCR wrote:
My FR-S arrived today...and it is the wrong one I didn't order. Somehow, they shipped an automatic and not the 6 Speed.
Not sure what this means now, as my dealer is frantically looking for where my car went, as there is someone else in the same boat who wanted the auto.
|
Boy, talk about disappointing. What a complete and utter screw-up in the supply chain. The only thing worse would have been delivering you a Scion xB.
Good luck!
Ryan
|
DCR
|
|
|
Nope, not even going to try it. The LFA transmission probably costs more than the entire FR-S :)
|
superchg2
|
|
DCR wrote:
My FR-S arrived today...and it is the wrong one I didn't order. Somehow, they shipped an automatic and not the 6 Speed.
Not sure what this means now, as my dealer is frantically looking for where my car went, as there is someone else in the same boat who wanted the auto.
|
Hopefully they can find your 6 speed, ASAP!
|
DCR
|
|
RyanDL wrote:
Boy, talk about disappointing. What a complete and utter screw-up in the supply chain. The only thing worse would have been delivering you a Scion xB.
Good luck!
Ryan
|
I am very particular about the delivery of my car, in that, I won't even let the dealer wash it prior to delivery because I do not want anyone scratching the clear. Not all places are careless, but I not taking the chance.
This situation now dissolves any "control" I had, because most likely now, the car is going to come out of the network and not off the truck. This means the car will have gone through prep at whatever dealer, and could have paint swirls, license plate brackets installed (we don't require fronts in Michigan) and possible test drive miles.
I am not pleased, but we shall see.
|
superchg2
|
|
Back in the day, I remember a few dealers who would actually rivet their metal logo on to customer's new cars. I can't even tolerate the decal type logo's on a new car.
|
DCR
|
|
Well, now they are telling me they might be able to get a dark gray (which I wanted originally). Either everything happens for a reason, or this might end up being a massive disappointment.
I won't know more until tomorrow.
|
RocketRon
|
|
That auto with paddle was taken from the Lexus IS-F, not too shabby.
You're right things happen for a reason, just try it, modified.com recommends it for track use!
NB I want my next car to have paddle shifting, so my opinion is not impartial.
|
TurkMan71
|
|
DCR wrote:
Well, now they are telling me they might be able to get a dark gray (which I wanted originally). Either everything happens for a reason, or this might end up being a massive disappointment.
I won't know more until tomorrow.
|
Good luck - yes everything happens for a reason!!
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
|
No it doesn't-it's just random shit and the mind makes post hoc spurious causality.
|
notyper
|
|
No f***in way. It's still a torque converter auto. And its 6 spds, not 8 like in the ISF. And it makes the car substantially slower.
Autos are fine if it boost sales and keeps the model alive, but it is not the driver's choice.
SC
|
dampflok
|
|
Nick Graves wrote:
No it doesn't-it's just random shit and the mind makes post hoc spurious causality. |
(salute)
|
LudegarH22A7
|
|
The auto offers a very impressive drive indeed... It shifts so fast and crisp. The sound it makes on the downshift rev match is killer as well. The auto is a jewel in its own right.
Still, yada yada yada... Owning this car without the ability to have full control would drive me crazy. The first time that damn gear indicator flashed and ignored my selection - I'd be ready to trade.
Keep us posted DCR.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Owe, I think it's pretty clear, especially since we've been on this website for years (you guys longer than me) that Acura's strategy has been a case of fudging, constantly changed minds and no clear direction.
I thought this was the case from the very beginning. When I saw the Prelude (sport touring, with RWS in its earlier iterations and then the first application of SH plus a big block 4-cylinder), I thought it should have been an Acura, rather than the Integra (which was far more simple). Beyond the Legend, there hasn't really been any "Acura-specific" cars that seemed to conform to any type of luxury vehicle mould. The 2nd gen TL came really close... but then the product planners changed their mind (at least twice) and now Acura is just really far behind all competitors.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
RocketRon wrote:
Did you try it? If that paddle shifter is anything close to the one in the LFA...
|
Really? You're going to buy the first inexpensive enthusiast car that's come out in the last couple of years... and you want to saddle it with an automatic transmission?
Modified.com recommends an automatic for track use? HELL TO THE NO.
I'm sorry, but that's truly terrible. Weren't you just defending the Civic Si (manual only) a couple of pages ago? Ugh.
|
dampflok
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
Beyond the Legend, there hasn't really been any "Acura-specific" cars that seemed to conform to any type of luxury vehicle mould. The 2nd gen TL came really close... |
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
Owe, I think it's pretty clear, especially since we've been on this website for years (you guys longer than me) that Acura's strategy has been a case of fudging, constantly changed minds and no clear direction.
I thought this was the case from the very beginning. When I saw the Prelude (sport touring, with RWS in its earlier iterations and then the first application of SH plus a big block 4-cylinder), I thought it should have been an Acura, rather than the Integra (which was far more simple). Beyond the Legend, there hasn't really been any "Acura-specific" cars that seemed to conform to any type of luxury vehicle mould. The 2nd gen TL came really close... but then the product planners changed their mind (at least twice) and now Acura is just really far behind all competitors.
|
I agree for the most part. However, the Integra was VERY consistent for 14 years in that each was a reasonable progression from the last gen, and maintained the same relative set of priorities. The Legend was also on the march until the RL, and the Vigor was a start on a 3rd product, although it lacked some in execution IMO. What looked to be shaping up in the early 90's was an Integra on the bottom (even though FWD, it was still very fun and reasonably sporty), the Vigor, the Legend and then up top, the NSX. They weren't necessarily advancing with huge amounts of power, but the line was starting to shape up.
IMO, Acura's real problems (and it also served as one of the early indicators of Honda's problems in hindsight), was Acura's choice to go alphanumeric because the Legend had more brand recognition than the Acura name. However, IMO, it was a case of placing the blame instead of making a solution. The reason the Legend had more recognition was because it was the only Acura product that lived up to the realities of luxury expectations without question. The Vigor's engine was sort of cobby and the Integra while fun, was barely more than a Civic in lower trims. Acura's problem wasn't the naming convention, it was that they needed to move the Legend up, fix the Vigor's problems and maybe scoot the Integra up just a smidge to make the whole lineup fit the mold of a "luxury" brand.
|
dampflok
|
|
owequitit wrote:
As for Audi, I am not saying they are anywhere near perfect. But I choose them specifically because their core strategy of working with a dynamically disadvantaged setup has actually worked out. |
|
Chocs
|
|
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
As for Audi, I am not saying they are anywhere near perfect. But I choose them specifically because their core strategy of working with a dynamically disadvantaged setup has actually worked out. |
|
In the case of RLX, Acura might want to maximize interior space with its use of transverse layout. That's a justification-- but maybe not one we're satisfied with.
And while Audi required the longitudinal layout to implement their quattro system, Acura should be able to implement their eSH-AWD regardless of engine layout due to the independent electric motors. Design flexibility is a sure sign of engineering prowess, ain't it?
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
notyper wrote:
No f***in way. It's still a torque converter auto. And its 6 spds, not 8 like in the ISF. And it makes the car substantially slower.
Autos are fine if it boost sales and keeps the model alive, but it is not the driver's choice.
SC
|
I detest the way slushboxes tend to knacker up the throttle steering on cars.
You'd be better off with a Fit CVT!
And as for rev-matching, in a BRZ why would you want a FRED do it for you? Renders the car rather pointless. Unless you live in Tokyo.
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
Chocs wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
As for Audi, I am not saying they are anywhere near perfect. But I choose them specifically because their core strategy of working with a dynamically disadvantaged setup has actually worked out. |
|
In the case of RLX, Acura might want to maximize interior space with its use of transverse layout. That's a justification-- but maybe not one we're satisfied with.
And while Audi required the longitudinal layout to implement their quattro system, Acura should be able to implement their eSH-AWD regardless of engine layout due to the independent electric motors. Design flexibility is a sure sign of engineering prowess, ain't it?
|
It's quite clear Acura's model is not Audi, it's Volvo!
The use of inline 5s & 6s instead of bent ones mean that Volvo can keep the front overhangs under control.
The Chinese like Volvos, even if the US has fallen out with them.
ILX > S40 (I cannot remember who pointed that out, but it's very apt!)
T X > S60
RLX > S80
Suddenly, the C30 and the C70 make the Volvo range look terribly sporty. How did that happen?
Acura's run by fruitcakes. I'm off to IKEA to buy a Bento box.
|
dampflok
|
|
Chocs wrote:
dampflok wrote:
Actually, the case for Honda/Acura is even worse than that. The engine-ahead-of-front-axle, longitudinal layout chosen by Audi enabled the implementation of the original quattro system. So while the layout had (and has) dynamic drawbacks, it also enabled dynamic advantages. By going transverse for Acura, Honda didn't have any such justification. It was pure cheapness. |
|
| And while Audi required the longitudinal layout to implement their quattro system, Acura should be able to implement their eSH-AWD regardless of engine layout due to the independent electric motors. Design flexibility is a sure sign of engineering prowess, ain't it? |
That illustrates another problem with a transverse orientation: It's hard to "up-engine." In a previous post or two from a while back, I observed that a longitudinal layout enables such things as swapping a domestic V8 into a Mazda Miata. Going back to the topic of Audi, the previous-gen S8 had a 5.2-liter V10, and the previous-gen S4 had a 4.2-liter V8. Would a 5.2-liter V10 fit in the RLX? Would a 4.2-liter V8 fit in the TSX or ILX? With a north-south engine orientation, other premium marques can "go to eleven." Acura can't even make it to ten.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
