|
|
|
|
 |
Mr. Taggart
 |
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910
In a nutshell Volt costs almost 90k to produce and losses are estimated to be 50k per vehicle. The story gets even richer as some folks are driving around for 199/month.
Good thing Government Motors was 'saved' and the pensions stripped from Delphi Employees.[url][/url]
|
NealX
|
|
|
Wow! I guess votes, er, I mean "Volts" are expensive!
|
DCR
|
|
$199 a month?!?!?!?!
Sign me up! I would spend $0 in gas on my commute!
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Yeah, somewhere people were getting 199/month leases in August and September with around 2k down.
Good thing GM was 'saved.'
|
NSXforever
|
|
Its a new technology. Prius used to lose money until the middle of the last gen. These companies invest in living hardware and know its a red item on the balance sheet with hopes of recouping costs in the future as they get better at producing it.
No different than the Clarity which leases for what $599 or so in Cali only. What are they like 500k each? An incredible living test bed.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Volt is a flawed concept. It's inherently costly and a poor use of resources.
It's a marketing ploy used in 2009 to justify saving GM.
The Clarity is a truly new technology.
Malcolm
:)
|
PhrozeDeuce
|
|
|
I guess Mr. T didn't realize on how a company like GM imploding would do and how the ramifications would proliferate throughout the nation. I suppose maybe he doesn't realize that GM doesn't build all the parts and components for their vehicles. So much for "help thy neighbor".
|
gofast182
|
|
Neal wrote:
Wow! I guess votes, er, I mean "Volts" are expensive!
|
Haha, nice.
Anyone else notice the new Volt commercials where they talk about how infrequently they stop for gas insinuating that the car is almost free to power? They don't talk about electric bills or the need for a dedicated 240v line in your home if you really want to charge it properly.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
NSXforever wrote:
Its a new technology. Prius used to lose money until the middle of the last gen. These companies invest in living hardware and know its a red item on the balance sheet with hopes of recouping costs in the future as they get better at producing it.
No different than the Clarity which leases for what $599 or so in Cali only. What are they like 500k each? An incredible living test bed.
|
Read the article. The vehicle is over engineered for its intended purpose and compared to its competitors. Did the Prius lose 40-50k per vehicle? And Toyota wasn't owned by the Goverment through an illegal process that shafted salaried pensioners and the rightful equity owners.
Same for the Clarity.
Neither the Pruis or Clarity were made by companies that in bed with the Government. GE buys them as the Government has passed laws and regulations that protect them from competition. The military is buying them in an effort to go 'Green'.
It is one thing to invest in new technology when a company is financially sound instead of investing the future of the entire company on something. GM bankrupt again two years max.
|
tennis32828
|
|
|
haha, hilarious
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Neither the Pruis or Clarity were made by companies that in bed with the Government.
...
It is one thing to invest in new technology when a company is financially sound instead of investing the future of the entire company on something. GM bankrupt again two years max. |
You are 100% wrong about that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/toyota-faces-20-drop-in-japan-industry-sales-as-aid-ends.html
"Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) and Honda Motor Co. (7267) can thank government aid for helping auto industry sales grow faster in Japan than any major market this year. As state subsidies are about to run out, so may the euphoria.
Japan vehicle sales, after surging about 53 percent in the first seven months, will drop as much as 20 percent next quarter as the payouts expire, analysts at BNP Paribas SA and IHS Automotive said. Toyota is counting on a cheaper version of the Prius hybrid to sustain demand, while Nissan Motor Co. (7201) has said it will offer support to dealers."
I follow the automotive industry closely, and I don't think there's an automaker out there who hasn't received massive state assistance in one form or another.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Neither the Pruis or Clarity were made by companies that in bed with the Government.
...
It is one thing to invest in new technology when a company is financially sound instead of investing the future of the entire company on something. GM bankrupt again two years max. |
You are 100% wrong about that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/toyota-faces-20-drop-in-japan-industry-sales-as-aid-ends.html
"Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) and Honda Motor Co. (7267) can thank government aid for helping auto industry sales grow faster in Japan than any major market this year. As state subsidies are about to run out, so may the euphoria.
Japan vehicle sales, after surging about 53 percent in the first seven months, will drop as much as 20 percent next quarter as the payouts expire, analysts at BNP Paribas SA and IHS Automotive said. Toyota is counting on a cheaper version of the Prius hybrid to sustain demand, while Nissan Motor Co. (7201) has said it will offer support to dealers."
I follow the automotive industry closely, and I don't think there's an automaker out there who hasn't received massive state assistance in one form or another.
|
I have never seen a person who spends so much time not repsonding to what was posted. Were you not loved as a child?
I stated: Neither the Prius or Clarity were made by companies that are in bed with the Government.
This does not say that sales were generated by government subsidies but that Toyota and Honda did not work hand in hand with the government to prevent others from competing, which what GE has done and continues to do. Also, the military has given in to the administration and is buying a significant number of Volts, at the direction of the current administration. Further, the whole exploding Volt fiasco would have been handled differently had it not been GM and had the car not been the Volt.
I also stated: It is one thing to invest in new technology when a company is finacially sound instead of investing the future of the entire company on something. GM bankrupt again in two years.
Honda and Toyota were not bailed out (for further clarification, bought out and then let retirees, dealers, and rightful equity owners to rot) by the government. They do not have the massive debt that GM has because at no point were the unions made to give up anything.
So are you arguing that GM is financially sound?
You may follow the industry closely but you have dropped the ball o this one. Go back and read more of the article where automotive engineers say the car is overdeveloped for the market and what it needs to do.
Also please enlighten me how GM can survive hemorrraging cash like it is when it has never made any of the unions renegotitate legacy costs, which are going to keep increasing.
|
superchg2
|
|
So, rather than 4 weeks, maybe GM should just quit building this money pit altogether.
|
P54
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Neither the Pruis or Clarity were made by companies that in bed with the Government.
...
It is one thing to invest in new technology when a company is financially sound instead of investing the future of the entire company on something. GM bankrupt again two years max. |
You are 100% wrong about that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/toyota-faces-20-drop-in-japan-industry-sales-as-aid-ends.html
"Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) and Honda Motor Co. (7267) can thank government aid for helping auto industry sales grow faster in Japan than any major market this year. As state subsidies are about to run out, so may the euphoria.
Japan vehicle sales, after surging about 53 percent in the first seven months, will drop as much as 20 percent next quarter as the payouts expire, analysts at BNP Paribas SA and IHS Automotive said. Toyota is counting on a cheaper version of the Prius hybrid to sustain demand, while Nissan Motor Co. (7201) has said it will offer support to dealers."
I follow the automotive industry closely, and I don't think there's an automaker out there who hasn't received massive state assistance in one form or another.
|
You guys talk about two different things. The Japanese Government subsidies is to sell more new cars, especially new fuel efficient ones and hybrids. They help the BUYERS which when they buy help the manufacturers. The money goes to the consumer, they use tax dollars (or YEN) and give it back to the people they taxed so they can buy new vehicles. (Of the consumers choice). They did not take tax money and put it in a money drain. Similarly the USA government used tax dollars to stimulate sales of new cars when they had the "cash for clunkers" program. That is totally different from GM/Government deal.
Overseas in Europe the Government also subsidize or try to stimulate sales of certain vehicles by using tax money to favor electric, diesel, small engines, less CO2 etc.
To use $billions tax money to enterprises that end up failing is a waste of money. What if all the $billions given to start up electric vehicle companies or other "energy saving companies" had been given to people so they could buy the most modern fuel efficient vehicles already on the market? Would that not have had a better impact on the economy?
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
I have never seen a person who spends so much time not repsonding to what was posted. Were you not loved as a child? |
Starting off with a personal attack? That makes you sound desperate.
I stated: Neither the Prius or Clarity were made by companies that are in bed with the Government.
This does not say that sales were generated by government subsidies but that Toyota and Honda did not work hand in hand with the government to prevent others from competing, which what GE has done and continues to do. |
Sorry, but you are wrong here. The Japanese automakers have extensive influence with the Japanese government, through their collective trade association. They lobbied the government for subsidies. Crony Capitalism is Crony Capitalism, whether it is through indirect subsidies or direct bailouts.
I also stated: It is one thing to invest in new technology when a company is finacially sound instead of investing the future of the entire company on something. GM bankrupt again in two years.
So are you arguing that GM is financially sound?
Go back and read more of the article where automotive engineers say the car is overdeveloped for the market and what it needs to do. |
Where did I argue that GM was financially sound? Nowhere.
I've also criticized the Volt for being overweight, cramped, and having horrible ergonomics/visibility. It's a badly executed product and a poor value for the consumer.
But that doesn't make Toyota, Honda, or other carmakers some kind of free-market angels. They aren't.
My point stands: nobody in the auto industry can claim to be innocent from the Crony Capitalist system.
Another example:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=30
"In 1992, South Carolina's state government offered BMW $100 million in incentives to build a plant. In 1993, Alabama's state government gave Mercedes Benz a $250 million subsidy to build a new plant. That same year, Indiana presented United Airlines with a $300 million deal to build a facility. Also, in 1993, Kentucky lured a Toyota plant away from Missouri by providing a $125 million tax incentive."
What was that about not being in bed with the government?
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
I have never seen a person who spends so much time not repsonding to what was posted. Were you not loved as a child? |
Starting off with a personal attack? That makes you sound desperate.
I stated: Neither the Prius or Clarity were made by companies that are in bed with the Government.
This does not say that sales were generated by government subsidies but that Toyota and Honda did not work hand in hand with the government to prevent others from competing, which what GE has done and continues to do. |
Sorry, but you are wrong here. The Japanese automakers have extensive influence with the Japanese government, through their collective trade association. They lobbied the government for subsidies. Crony Capitalism is Crony Capitalism, whether it is through indirect subsidies or direct bailouts.
I also stated: It is one thing to invest in new technology when a company is finacially sound instead of investing the future of the entire company on something. GM bankrupt again in two years.
So are you arguing that GM is financially sound?
Go back and read more of the article where automotive engineers say the car is overdeveloped for the market and what it needs to do. |
Where did I argue that GM was financially sound? Nowhere.
I've also criticized the Volt for being overweight, cramped, and having horrible ergonomics/visibility. It's a badly executed product and a poor value for the consumer.
But that doesn't make Toyota, Honda, or other carmakers some kind of free-market angels. They aren't.
My point stands: nobody in the auto industry can claim to be innocent from the Crony Capitalist system.
Another example:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=30
"In 1992, South Carolina's state government offered BMW $100 million in incentives to build a plant. In 1993, Alabama's state government gave Mercedes Benz a $250 million subsidy to build a new plant. That same year, Indiana presented United Airlines with a $300 million deal to build a facility. Also, in 1993, Kentucky lured a Toyota plant away from Missouri by providing a $125 million tax incentive."
What was that about not being in bed with the government?
|
Clearly you cannot discerne the difference between companies tanking advantage of tax breaks related to physical plant locations and when a company purposely tries to stop others from competing against it.
Also sounds like you equate anything from the government to be the same so the fact that GM and the Government stiffed the rightful equity owners, forced proftiable dealers to close, and shafted non-union retirees the same.
|
P54
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
"In 1992, South Carolina's state government offered BMW $100 million in incentives to build a plant. In 1993, Alabama's state government gave Mercedes Benz a $250 million subsidy to build a new plant. That same year, Indiana presented United Airlines with a $300 million deal to build a facility. Also, in 1993, Kentucky lured a Toyota plant away from Missouri by providing a $125 million tax incentive."
What was that about not being in bed with the government? |
I'm sure Honda got benefits where they are located in USA too. That is very common as new factories generate income for the state. Benefits for getting a business to your state are many, you get employment at the factory as well as all the businesses connected to the factory or business. Infrastructure improves, you get tax dollars from the business and the individual worker, you get less unemployment and less welfare spending. Benefits at the business secures the retirement for workers and lessen the chance for being a burden to the state, county.
Businesses locate where incentives and workforce is aplenty and infrastructure supports it. Then the business is independent and do its business, however if business becomes dependent upon Government money to (start and) survive all the time the business becomes less competitive and we see the result of that in communist/socialist states/countries.
Everybody is a loser when big companies go down the drain, however the big companies have to learn to make products that people want. To keep a company going with tax money is not beneficial, maybe a short term relief is, however long term it kills a company.
Crisis management should not be long term. It's like being on life support. Kept artificially alive.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Clearly you cannot discerne the difference between companies tanking advantage of tax breaks related to physical plant locations and when a company purposely tries to stop others from competing against it. |
The methods may be different, but the result is along the same lines: a net transfer of wealth from the taxpayers (via government) to a private company.
Toyota asks the government for a $100M tax break that is extended to no other company in the state or country it is operating in. Say the government gives it to them. Toyota keeps that $100M off their tax bill. That's a $100M advantage over competitors.
Now lets say the same government instead offers Toyota a no-bid contract to provide Priuses for official use, and that contract generates $100M in after-tax profit for Toyota. Different method of wealth transfer, but same result.
| Also sounds like you equate anything from the government to be the same so the fact that GM and the Government stiffed the rightful equity owners, forced proftiable dealers to close, and shafted non-union retirees the same. |
Now we are getting somewhere. The U.S. government was instrumental in pushing through the GM bankruptcy, so yes, any collateral damage from the proceedings is the fault of the government as well as GM.
|
ClementZ
|
|
Well, if GM hadn't been "saved," several thousand more (millions perhaps?) would be unemployed.
How was Congress to know of the profit losses on every Volt GM built?
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/09/10/the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs
|
P54
|
|
|
NorCalSales
|
|
|
I am no VOLT fan but assigning all the RD to only the vehicles currently sold is just not how business is done. By that logic every one sold from now forward is going to make fat cash. The knee jerk reactionaries fail at math yet again.
|
siegen
|
|
Thanks for the read. I don't know if Lutz's calculation is accurate or not, but it seems reasonable.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Clearly you cannot discerne the difference between companies tanking advantage of tax breaks related to physical plant locations and when a company purposely tries to stop others from competing against it. |
The methods may be different, but the result is along the same lines: a net transfer of wealth from the taxpayers (via government) to a private company.
Toyota asks the government for a $100M tax break that is extended to no other company in the state or country it is operating in. Say the government gives it to them. Toyota keeps that $100M off their tax bill. That's a $100M advantage over competitors.
Now lets say the same government instead offers Toyota a no-bid contract to provide Priuses for official use, and that contract generates $100M in after-tax profit for Toyota. Different method of wealth transfer, but same result.
| Also sounds like you equate anything from the government to be the same so the fact that GM and the Government stiffed the rightful equity owners, forced proftiable dealers to close, and shafted non-union retirees the same. |
Now we are getting somewhere. The U.S. government was instrumental in pushing through the GM bankruptcy, so yes, any collateral damage from the proceedings is the fault of the government as well as GM.
|
Your assumption is invalid as the taxpaying base includes the company itself which is going to be paying a significant amount of local taxes in itself. The tax breaks being discussed typically are on local property taxes. However, if structured correctly the company will bring additional jobs to the area spurring additional econonmic activity. (See Honda in Marysville, OH., BMW in Spartanburg, SC. Boeing in SC., Hyundai in MS., and Honda in AL.) This money flows into the community not only as profits to the company but to profits to other local businesses as well. Don't forget the additional jobs that are created. And other companies can relocate in the area, if they choose to. Why would a state want to limit itself to only one company.
You also forget that these private companies are now frequently owned by employees and others in the communities in the form of equities in retirement accounts, so the benefactors of these private companies are local citizens as well.
No bid contracts are by their nature very different as there is no competition. When an auto manufacturer looks to build a plant there is significant competition to provide the best package of benefits to entice the company and by law these kind of negotiations need to see the light of day so the local costituents can see what kind of deal that has been made.
|
TonyEX
|
|
NorCalSales wrote:
I am no VOLT fan but assigning all the RD to only the vehicles currently sold is just not how business is done. By that logic every one sold from now forward is going to make fat cash. The knee jerk reactionaries fail at math yet again.
|
Reading the comments is very interesting... some notes
Car technology is not static. Car companies are constantly spending money on R&D to stay up and running and alternate fuel technology is running leaps and bound... so giving the Volt a genererous 5 year shelf life, if GM has sold 22K in the last two years, assuming that it sells another 40K in the next three years (old models sells less than new models), amortizing the R&D you can see that still spreading the R&D, GM will still have lost ~$18K per car.
And this with Obama's 7500 credit.. otherwise, GM would lose $23,500 per car.
OK, so you say that you can take some of those R&D costs and spread them to the next product.. perhaps... that's likely valid in a static technology, but on rapidly advancing technologies, the R&D is obsoleted quickly.
So, even being nice, assume that the next Volt does not get a $7500 tax credit... and assume that perhaps $4000 can be carried forward as R&D (extremely generous).. so you can see that Volt-II will still lose more than $10K per car....
I can almost guarantee you that the GM model will attempt to keep the Volt static for 10 years, hoping to get moneys from the Feds, and then they will shut it down, and minimizing R&D expenses. They have no real business plan to build it.
Vide, OTOH, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, BMW, they are building hybrids with their own money and are actually selling them for ever more realistic prices and ever greater usefulness. These companies are maintaining high levels of R&D year after year and creating new technologies and pushing the physics of materials.
It's not a matter of being anti Obama.. it's a matter of whether you let free marketeers build new products or the do it via Government mandates.
---
BTW, in the Forbes article, there's someone call Jeff leaving comments. I guess he owns a Volt. He is obvious to the total cost of running his car. I guess not only did we the taxpayers subsidize his car but we are also paying for his car to be charged at his work.
And, of course, what they all forget is the cost of producing energy... which since Obama is shutting down coal, is going to go through the roof in the North East.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
ClementZ wrote:
Well, if GM hadn't been "saved," several thousand more (millions perhaps?) would be unemployed.
How was Congress to know of the profit losses on every Volt GM built?
|
First of all, GM could have went through an ordinary bankruptcy, and as part of this process all union contracts would be declared null and void and GM would have had a free hand at negotiating both wages and benefits for current employees as well as legacy costs related to those who have already retired, including some of those at the ripe old age of 50.
Second, GM would of had the opportunity size the workforce necessary given their levels of sales.
Third, the rightful owners of the companies assets would have been able to get something out of the process instead of getting zilch, and could have negotiated sales of what the bankruptcy court determined were uneeded assets.
Fourth, had the illegal transfer of ownership to the unions from the rightful owners, it is highly possible that the non-union retirees would have not seen their legacy benefits terminated, but had seen a reduction in legacy benefits across the entire company.
Fifth, other car manufacturers could have picked up the slack, and in doing so would of had the need to hire people to increase output. The problem the administration has with this is that the other manufacturers would locate the jobs in right to work states and would not want to hire lazy UAW employees, which would have costs the administration votes.
Congress should find out how much the losses are because the administration took it on their own to spend 5B of the taxpayers money on GM and other 'green' car companies.
At one point the department of energy was hiring Bain Capital and others because they had so much money invested. Do you really want the energy department determining what prudent investments of your tax dollars are?
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
NorCalSales wrote:
I am no VOLT fan but assigning all the RD to only the vehicles currently sold is just not how business is done. By that logic every one sold from now forward is going to make fat cash. The knee jerk reactionaries fail at math yet again.
|
Actually for accounting purposes R&D costs are expensed in the period that they incur, so that 1.2B that GM is estimated to have spent has already came out of the 5B the taxpayers were forced to loan them. This is not knee jerkiness but basic accounting. For tax purposes you can choose to amortize over ten years or take at once.
As for as to look at R&D over production the article states that even if you were reach 120k units of production you would still be looking north of 10k per vehicle even though they will never sell 120k of them. What the article is trying to look at is what are the all in costs for the vehicle, vs what the vehicle can be sold for. It is not knee jerk to ask how a car that has pure manufacturing costs (without any overhead) of roughly 32-35k per vehicle can be leased for 199/month. Remember those of us who pay taxes will have to pay this back, so it is not just about profit and loss but about cash flow as well. GM has already sunk our cash into devlopment and it needs to generate postivie cash flows in order to pay off its loans. When you lease a vehicle below manufacturing costs and does not cover any overhead does not bode well.
Let's not forget all of the union retiree legacy benefits that have to be paid as well. Who do you think will see cash first? Union thugs or taxpayers? Will GM ever have the cash flow to pay back the loans? Highly doubtful.
But Tony is right as he in an earlier posts, GM does not have the money to continue to spend on R&D but the other makes will continue to spend and make improvements.
Just like Solyndra, Fisker, and others the administration spent sh1tloads of money and have no business acumen. Look at the push T Boone Pickens was making for government subsidies of natural gas. T Boone owns a bunch of natural gas and natural gas companies and was howling for free money when natural gas was over 10/mmcf but now that it is back down around 3/mmcf he says the subsidies are not needed. What is the difference? Well others have spent the money to find out that fracking can be more cost effective than previously thought, it just wasn't Ole T Boone's companies that thought of it.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Your assumption is invalid as the taxpaying base includes the company itself which is going to be paying a significant amount of local taxes in itself. The tax breaks being discussed typically are on local property taxes. However, if structured correctly the company will bring additional jobs to the area spurring additional econonmic activity. (See Honda in Marysville, OH., BMW in Spartanburg, SC. Boeing in SC., Hyundai in MS., and Honda in AL.) This money flows into the community not only as profits to the company but to profits to other local businesses as well. Don't forget the additional jobs that are created. And other companies can relocate in the area, if they choose to. Why would a state want to limit itself to only one company. |
This is getting way off track. Tax breaks and loopholes are mathematically equivalent to spending.
To put it another way, if a company, by moving to an area, would result in $100 in tax revenue (which goes towards paying for government, emergency services, schools, other public goods like utilities that help the company), and the government says: 'we will give you a break -- only pay $50 in tax', that is effectively handing the company money.
Why?
Because that tax revenue goes towards things that support the infrastructure that benefits the company. If they are paying $50 for $100 of services (their share of what it costs to run the community), that is wealth transfer. Someone else needs to make up the difference.
Yes, more jobs and more people move to the area and that helps economic growth, but it costs money to support new people and new businesses. That means more infrastructure, more sewer and water lines, more schools, and more emergency services. Those people may be working and paying taxes, but they are also simultaneously creating need for services, which must be paid for.
From a classical Liberal perspective, using the tax code as a policy bludgeon is unacceptable! Tax rates should be used to pay in full for services that the community deems necessary, and not as a backdoor tool to funnel money to specific parties or industries.
No bid contracts are by their nature very different as there is no competition. When an auto manufacturer looks to build a plant there is significant competition to provide the best package of benefits to entice the company and by law these kind of negotiations need to see the light of day so the local costituents can see what kind of deal that has been made.
|
Again, this is a difference in degree, not in kind. The mechanism of wealth transfer is different in this case, but it is still wealth transfer.
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
|
So how much money does Honda lose on every Clarity?
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Clarity is likely a future means of practical transport.
Volt is a dead end marketing ploy. A con-trick.
Malcolm
:)
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[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}
