Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69

Thread: Auto bailout, from within

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by culver View Post
    It is not correct to say Wagoner ran GM into the ground. GM was in bad shape when Wagoner took over. Wagoner has done many good things for GM. The current products and the products to be released over the next year or two are those that were created while Wagoner was CEO. That isn't to day Wagoner fixed GM. I'm not sure that GM could have been fixed without a bankruptcy. Certainly Wagoner didn't stop GM's crash but it is grossly unfair to say he ran it into the ground.
    A Wagoner apologist as well as GM apologist? Impressive.

    I'm not sure blame can entirely be centred on a CEO but let's keep in mind that according to Wikpedia:

    The latter part of Wagoner's tenure as CEO of General Motors found him under heavy criticism as the market valuation of GM went down by more than 90% and the company losing more than $82 billion USD
    That's pretty freaking damning if you ask me. He led GM during it's most unsuccessful era. It's hard to exactly measure if he exactly mitigated the disaster that GM already was in but the results under his leadership don't look very good do they? Sure GM was in bad shape when he took over but things got even worse under his guard.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    No Kitdy,
    A realist. Apologist would assume that my points have no merit. I trust that my reputation around these parts is solid enough that people know I don't say things without some justification. Think about it, the UAW problems and the high pension costs are not things Wagoner created. They existed before he started at GM. GM's product reputation was very poor when Wagoner took over and their products were generally uncompetitive.

    During his time Wagoner did a lot to win vital concessions from the unions and clearly GM products are better now and more competitive now than at any time in the last 20 years.

    What he didn't do was fix the financial picture. The fact of the mater is the ship had a lot of leaks and was taking on water faster than he could fix it. As it became more and more clear that GM's obligations were more than the company could support the stock rightly lost value. As GM's liabilities to it's retirees became greater and greater the company was shedding assets and putting the proceeds of the sales into the pension funds. It does something like this, GM sells a division that makes money for say $1B. That division could be Hugues, EDM, etc. So now the assets of the company are $1B smaller. That should change the value of the stock because if the money can be invested elsewhere the total worth of the company isn't changed. However, if that $1B is simply put into the pension fund, then GM's assets were decreased by $1B but it's bank accounts were enriched by $1B. The share holders just lost $1B in value.

    Over time GM has to reduce it's dividend to pay into the pension fund. Well, GM hasn't been a growth stock for ages. However a 6% dividend might make it a good stock to own. When the dividend is reduced to say 1% many people will sell it. Again the value of the stock drops. Finally, when the pension liabilities really come home to roost and it is clear that the company's position is unsustainable what do you expect the company to do? Of course the stock is going to fail at that point.

    Defending Wagoner is not the same thing as saying he did everything that could have been done nor is it saying another man could have saved GM. However, it is flat out wrong to say Wagoner did nothing or that GM only got worse under his watch. Look at a '99 GM car or truck compared to the competition. Now look at any of the newly release GM cars compared to the competition. Its clear that Wagoner was doing something during his time in office.

    What I can't say, and what I don't think many people have said is what moves could he have realistically made that would have ultimately saved GM and were those moves realistic without hindsight.

    I think Wagoner would have been a fine CEO in stable times when GM just needed progressive evolutionary change. In modern times it was clear GM needed radical change. Wagoner wasn't the right guy for that job but that's a far cry from being an idiot or being the one who caused GM's downfall.

    BTW, I would argue that the time of Roger Smith was GM's most unsuccessful era. That was when GM's reputation was taking a big hit and when quality was probably as bad as it ever was when compared to the competition. Roger Smith also implemented some very bad restructurings. Finally, in order to make sure GM never lost money under his watch, in his last year he cut all spending including halting new car programs to save money. Sure that made the books look good that year but delayed needed new cars for a year. This decade has probably seen the biggest positive shift in GM's products ever. Had GM not paid something like $108B into pensions and health care for retired workers perhaps the bottom line would have also been successful.
    Last edited by culver; 10-25-2009 at 10:57 PM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by culver View Post
    No Kitdy,
    A realist. Apologist would assume that my points have no merit.
    Fair enough culver, a good read by the way and you raise some good points - I clearly don't have the same inside knowledge as you do into GM. I am not sure where my own personal judgment of Wagoner's performance lands.

    As I understand the word apologist, it need not mean your points have no merit, but you are a defender of something - GM and Wagoner in this case. I called you one before and once again it wasn't an insult but a bit of a joke - just jerking your chain for always going to bat for The General is all.

    EDIT: The GM legacy healthcare cost is just another argument for either universal healthcare or Obama's public option by the way.
    Last edited by Kitdy; 10-25-2009 at 11:30 PM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    All good
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitdy View Post
    EDIT: The GM legacy healthcare cost is just another argument for either universal healthcare or Obama's public option by the way.
    It could also be a warning regarding the pitfalls of promising things without knowing how much they will really cost and assuming you will have the money to pay tomorrow for promises made today

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by culver View Post
    It is not correct to say Wagoner ran GM into the ground. GM was in bad shape when Wagoner took over. Wagoner has done many good things for GM. The current products and the products to be released over the next year or two are those that were created while Wagoner was CEO. That isn't to day Wagoner fixed GM. I'm not sure that GM could have been fixed without a bankruptcy. Certainly Wagoner didn't stop GM's crash but it is grossly unfair to say he ran it into the ground.
    Wagoner was part of the problem and not the solution. He engrossed himself in self-serving politics to the detriment of the future of GM. Whether he is a good man or not, is irrelevant here. He had a choice of holding the bull by the horn, or continuing to play silly internal organizational politics. He chose organizational politics over obvious business reality, and he got appropriately axed, as it should be. Leadership requires courage and the fortitude to do the right thing, even if it will hurt many and yourself, in the short-run. Wagoner was not prepared to follow this time honored matra.
    Last edited by G35COUPE; 10-26-2009 at 08:59 AM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by culver View Post

    I think Wagoner would have been a fine CEO in stable times when GM just needed progressive evolutionary change. In modern times it was clear GM needed radical change. Wagoner wasn't the right guy for that job but that's a far cry from being an idiot or being the one who caused GM's downfall.
    You raise some good points, culver. But Rick Wagoner still was a screw up who made many bone-headed decisions. Even if it were stable times, he still would have hurt GM. For example, Wagoner was the genius who decided to bet the entire family farm on SUVs. Sure, it looked smart at the time to invest in SUVs, but GM invested EVERYTHING in SUVs, with Wagoner even gloating back in 2000 about his decision to let GM's car line go to hell so he can invest more in trucks and SUVs. And when SUVs started to go out of style in 2005, what did Wagoner do? He rolled out new SUVs, and launched a large advertising campaign cramming them down people's throats when we were instead looking to leave the gas hogs behind. I remember it well, all those commercials with GM talking about they "can get you out of your car and into an SUV." And how about the Hummer. Nobody could have thought that Hummer would be a sustainable brand. Wagoner was obviously just trying to cash in on the SUV fad, and when it started to fizzle out, he went full force into cramming it in our collective faces because he knew that without SUVs, GM was screwed, because that was the basket in which he layed all of GM's eggs.

    Wagoner is the genius behind the Pontiac Aztek. When the launch time neared, many inside GM were very skeptical about it and were afraid that it would bomb. Wagoner pushed for it and it eventually made it to the market. And we all know what happened next.

    Wagoner is the whiz-kid who decided to kill the EV-1. On top of that, Wagoner never took the Toyota Prius seriously, preferring to shove Hummers in our faces while the Japanese made advancements on alternative fuels. Sure, they showed off a few hydrogen cars, but how many made it into consumer's hands? That's right, zero. And then when GM finally came out with a hybrid, it was a half-assed add on to their trucks and SUVs. Toyota ran away with the alternative fuels market and a golden reputation as a forward-thinking automaker, and GM just shrugged and said, "Whatever, cool people will still buy our Hummers." They didn't.

    Wagoner reacted poorly to GM's declining fortunes, pretending that if he just cupped his hands over his ears and screamed really loudly, all these pesky problems would go away. GM required massive changes fast, and Wagoner seemed to be trying to do his best to maintain the status quo. Saab, Saturn, Hummer and Pontiac have been dead brands for YEARS. However, instead of unloading them back when he could have found a sucker to stick them on (like how Ford offloaded the red ink gushing Jaguar-Land Rover business onto TATA), Wagoner just his has PR monkey boy Mark LeNieve stand up and say, "All of our brands will prosper!"

    That is what irked me most about Wagoner. There was no such thing as accountability during his tenure as CEO. WHen GM was losing market share hand over fist, you never heard Wagoner or ANY other executive at GM say, "We are in deep shit and are running out of money." Wagoner never stepped up and said, "I screwed up. I misjudged the market and poured everything into SUVs in hopes of some quick profits and now I am paying the price." (And before you say anything, Toyota CEO Katsuaki Watanabe did exactly that, as well as apologizing before stepping down over the summer). Instead, no matter how much money or market share GM lost, all the news out of the ren-cen was shiny, happy, everythings good. All you heard out of Wagoner's mouthpieces was stuff like, "GM has regained its competitive spirit!" and "We have turned a corner!" and "Our turnaround is going better than expected!" On top of that, he always found a scapegoat for GM's declining fortunes:

    *Nobody buying GM cars? Its not the fact that our cars are not as desirable as the competition's, it is the stupid customers who don't understand that our cars are as good as the competition's. It is that damn "perception gap"!
    *SUV sales are tanking, bringing us colossal losses? It has nothing to do with the fact that SUVs are going out of style and we were caught with our pants down because we didn't invest bupkis in our car lines and in alternative fuels. People are just forgot that the cool, manly people drive Hummers, and that Toyota Priuses are for eco-weenies. Making a new ad campaign, shoving SUVs down America's throat will take care of that.
    *GM has tanked and is now bankrupt? It is not the result of my ineffective management! It is that damn financial crisis! People can't buy cars if they can't get credit, right? Sure, nobody bought our cars and our revenue and market share was tanking while the economy was still good, but that doesn't matter! Look, Toyota is losing money too! Its not our fault, we are just victims of circumstance!

    I have saved the worst for last. This is the colossal ****-up that brought GM down. And this is why I can't see how ANYONE can defend Wagoner. Under Wagoner, he couldn't accept the fact that GM was no longer the major global player. He wanted to make sure that GM stayed the biggest, no matter what the cost. When sales started to tank post 9/11, he artifically inflated them with incentives. "Stack 'em high and sell 'em low" was GM's policy. It completely destroyed the equity of all of GM's brands, and it ruined any chance the company had of making a profit. The marketing for their cars no longer revolved around the car itself. GM's commercials were all numbers. It would show five seconds of car, then spend the next 25 explaining how GMAC can give you one hell of a lease on it. Nobody bought GM cars anymore based off their quality or brand cachet: they just bought them because they could get a great deal. Jenna's new Buick isn't that prestigious anymore, since its commercials just advertised that you can get one for 5K off sticker, and the fact that they were so cheap that winos in the ghetto were driving them. Sure, the whole "stack 'em high and sell 'em low" policy had existed since the Roger Smith era, but Wagoner was the one who accelerated on the incentives full force, until GM became dependent on them just to move the metal. When GM's sales would rise, so would their losses. They were flooding the market with unprofitable vehicles. Wagoner was clearly pushing an unsustainable business model.

    So no, Wagoner was no victim to circumstance. Yes, he was dealt a somewhat bad hand, but he made plenty of boneheaded decisions that makes him fully deserve his legacy as the dolt who wrecked GM.

    BTW, one last thing: Wagoner doesn't deserve any credit for GM selling better products; that is all Bob Lutz's job. It was Lutz and Lutz alone that put (at least some) competitve products in GM showrooms. If it weren't for him, GM would probably still belching out the same out dreck that they were back before he was hired.
    Last edited by Runfromcheney; 10-26-2009 at 03:01 PM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Run,

    I'm not sure you are being fair in your analysis. I don't argue with the facts but I think you aren't weighting them appropriately.

    For instance, the push in SUVs and trucks in the being of the decade. First, it would make sense that GM would want to keep hold of one of the few market segments they did well in. Realistically it was going to be hard for GM to quickly regain anything in the car market and when it comes down to it that market is heavily saturated. GM decided they would fortify their area of strength. Had gas prices stayed low we would probably look back and say that was a good move. In the end it wasn't because gas prices shot up. GM didn't see it coming but then again neither did Toyota or Nissan who were both investing heavily in large truck production at the time. As for pushing them in '05, well that's the product they had so they pushed it. Toyota did the same thing when their new full size truck came out into record gas prices.

    At one point you blame the Aztec on Wagoner yet then you don't credit him with the good cars GM now has. Wagoner brought in Lutz. Wagoner perhaps saw that the previous man in that job was willing to let things like the Aztec out the door thus wanted Lutz in his place. Personally, if Lutz is responsible for GM's newer and better products then I have to give Wagoner credit for getting Lutz. Incidentally, while the Aztec was unquestionably a market failure, I don't think it was nearly as big a financial failure. The Aztec was based on GM's minivan platform. That sadly gave it the really awkward proportions but it also meant it wasn't as expensive to develop. I suspect it was far cheaper than say the MR2-S which sold in poor numbers yet was it's own platform. Really, the Aztec is remembered for looking so bad (which really make one ask what went wrong). However, I'm sure many other vehicles sold every bit as badly but didn't get as much press.

    I don't know that without hard numbers I can agree with your biggest point either (though you may be right). You say that Wagoner didn't down size enough. Well, could GM downsize that much? Would the UAW let GM downsize that much? The UAW has shown a long history of standing in the way of change when they feel change would cost jobs. Under chapter 11 it is realistic to tell the UAW, take it or leave it and if you strike you will be fired. Under normal times its very possible that GM really couldn't do that.

    It's easy to say the man didn't fix GM or that GM went under on his watch. However, it's much harder to say "he could have done X" without knowing what he really was facing. In my own work I've seen a number of examples where a series of apparently unrelated events or requirements result in what on the surface seems like a very strange outcome. It's only when you get a chance to really dig in that you realize that the outcome wasn't based on random or dumb choices but on a series of unrelated but rational choices in response to competing objectives.

    BTW, I'm not entirely sure I'm happy with the way the UAW was treated under the chapter 11 but for a while I figured bankruptcy was the only way to fix GM because it was one of the few ways power could be once again returned to the hands of a few and taken away from the UAW and others.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    34
    Culver,

    I guess you can say that. I loathed Rick Wagoner for years; I never thought he was doing a good job at GM.

    However, you missed my point on the SUVs. Toyota had a full line of SUVs (which some will argue today is a key weakness), but they also diversified their R&D, to keep up a competitive car line. Wagoner turned GM into a one trick pony: if you went into a GM showroom, you either bought an SUV or went to hell. In a Toyota showroom, you could buy anything from a hybrid Prius to a large Land Cruiser. Wagoner never seemed interested in this kind of diversification, it was just all SUVs all the time under his watch. And when SUV sales started to fall (Not just because of high gas prices, SUVs were just generally going out of style at the time) Wagoner didn't try to adjust to the market. His solution was to instead force-feed the SUVs onto the market when there was no longer a demand for them. Jurgen Schrempp did similar with Chrysler, and we all know how that worked for them.

    You got me on your second point. It was Wagoner's idea to hire Lutz. He knew of the work Lutz did at Chrysler and assumed that Lutz could bring desirable new products to GM's showrooms. So yes, you can credit him for that.

    I have argued that GM should have filed chapter 11 back when they started to hit the skids in 2006. Of course the UAW and everyone else surrounding GM would be resistant to change. However, Wagoner was one of them. He never tried it. It wasn't like, "I want to change but my hands are tied", but more or less of Wagoner simply wanting to keep everything status-quo.

    However, I will admit that this all isn't completely Wagoner's fault. He was simply the head dolt. There were thousands of other poor managers making poor decisions and resisting change, as the result of a toxic corporate culture that had dated back for more than 50 years. I mean, just do a Google search on articles about GM's corporate culture. "GM's Culture Is Like a Blanket of Fog" (That is what I recall that it is called) by Ross Perot is a good start. You will be amazed by what you read, GM's executives were just stuck in their whole little world, completely out of touch with reality. It will also piss you off for the fact that a lot of these dolts are still running the company.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    I see the SUV move as pot odds. GM only had so much money and they needed to put it into what ever bet was likely to pay off the best. Those winnings would fund the revamping of the rest of the line. Instead the bet went bad.

    I agree that chapter 11 a long time ago would have been good for the company. However, it's possible that under different economic times people would have been more inclined to let the company go chapter 13. It's also understandable that a CEO would not want to let his company go under if there was ANY way to avoid it. He probably had personal incentives to avoid it and certainly there would be a number of good corporate incentives. The risk of chapter 13 was a good reason to avoid chapter 11.

    I thought Delorean said it the culture was a fog. I certainly agree GM had loads of problems and things like the cultural issues date back long before Wagoner. If you read All Corvettes are Red you can see many of the ways Roger Smith screwed the company.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    546
    "could GM downsize that much?" Yes!!!

    Labor unions are the 21st century excuse for poor management to be less innovative and competitive in a global market.

    Going by Factors Proportions theory of International Trade and Commerce, labor unions or a consideration of them, would be a sub-category of labor factors and not the whole of it. To this end, labor unions contribute an insignificant impact on the level of competitiveness of any business.

    What about other factors such as the power of suppliers, demand conditions, industry rivalry, firm strategy, etc, all related to management decisions? Unions don't write contracts for sub-par or inferior parts----management does that. Unions don't have a first mover advantage, marketing, and sales capability on demand conditions----management does that. Unions do not start or ignite industry rivalry---other competitors do that.

    In short, unions were just a convenient target for the blames of GM's utter failure. Unions did not make the decisions that took advantage of short-term gains---management did.
    Last edited by G35COUPE; 10-27-2009 at 04:00 PM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    G35,
    You should take a look at the news regarding Ford and the UAW. After years of making sure that all the members of the UAW got the same benefits regardless of the health of the company (something that helped kill Studebaker) the UAW now is not interested in giving Ford the same life saving concessions they gave GM and Chrysler. This is the same union that basically killed International Harvester with a strike.

    Have you seen the video showing Ford's very modern plant in Brazil. The video claims that many of the things that make the plant so class leading are not possible in the US thanks to labor work rules.

    Finally, when you consider that GM has paid out around $100 BILLION dollars to the unions for pensions and health care it becomes more apparent just how much the unions are a financial drain on the company. That extreme cost ends up taking away funds that could be used to create more products. It took away funds that could be used to put better interiors in GM cars. It took away funds that could be used to improve quality or modernize components. It took away funds that could have been used for fundimental R&D.

    That cost was like a high tax on doing business. Ultimately you can't compete when your fundamental operating costs are substantially higher than your competitors especially when you no longer have the premium brand. Hyundai certainly couldn't have turned it's self around in the US market if it had the labor issues and cost that GM was facing. I would suggest you read "While America Aged" for more info on just how insidious the effects of the unions were on GM's financial health.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    In other countries health care and pensions are not the business of the unions, but are arranged in totally different ways. Perhaps GM (and Ford if I understand you correctly?) is the victim of your system? I know this is academic, but it still might be a point to consider. The structure of the US industry might not be the most progressive. They were for instance the number one shipbuilding nation in the fifties, and can now only keep some yards going because of military orders, and heavily subsidized orders for ships engaged in (protected) domestic trades. The story about the steel industry is of a similar nature. And yes, I am aware that also in Europe we have seen the same thing happening to these industries, but altogether much later than in the US. It does not bode well for the future.
    Last edited by henk4; 10-27-2009 at 07:49 PM.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    henk4,
    I do think the way retirement and pensions were handled historically in the US is a problem. The true problem was promisses were made but not funded up front. There was an assumption/ blind eye turned to the fact that one of these days we would have to pay back. Even worse, every time the unions won some new concession it was often retroactive so even if company X had put away enough money to pay say a 15% pension (15% of what, I don't know, just 15%) they are underfunded when the unions some how negotiate a new plan for 20%.

    A government run system can and often does have similar problems. However, there is one big difference. Under a government run system all of us in the system get penalized equally. If company X shrinks to half it's original size it pays half as much in taxes each year. If a Japanese company comes to town and sets up shop they pay the same taxes and what not as you. They may not have had any retired workers last year but they pay for part of yours. Next year when some of their guys retire you help pay for them.

    That model also has problems but it does have a certain level of flexibility that the model started by the auto industry in the late 40s and early 50s doesn't have. Ironically, the big 3, GM in particular wanted to avoid a government run pension and health care system so they worked hard to get the system we have now. It's an example of a bad management choice but I doubt people thought it was that bad an idea half a century ago when they implemented the plan. As I've said before, some of GM's problems have roots that go back decades. It's not always fair to place full blame of the current problems on recent management.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,329
    Culver
    In many countries there is a combination of state pensions and additional pensions supplied through pension funds. The state provides a base pension for all citizens (over a certain age) and funding for that goes through a social premium levied via the income tax.
    Additional pensions are run by independent pension funds (not owned or controlled by the state), to which both the employer and the employee contribute. Pension funds are generally not restricted to one company only, but serve many to spread the risks. The payment from pension funds therefore does not depend on the economic wellbeing of individual companies.
    Taking my country as an example, there are however strict controls on the financial status of individual pension funds, and their degree of coverage (assets against pensions to be paid) has always to meet a certain level, otherwise our National Bank will impose restructuring measures. The unions are involved to a certain extent as the level of the pension premium is part of their collective bargaining agreement that they reach with the employers.
    This explanation is not to tell you "we are better" but I am trying to convey the message that there are more options than pure government run pension funds, the ones that the big three obviously tried to avoid....
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    That system sounds a lot more like what most US companies have. First we do have a government run pension plan called Social Security. However it is generally underfunded and even if it wasn't, it doesn't pay out much. Most companies now have 401K which are savings accounts that include investments and managed portfolios. They are for the most part fully funded up front but then they have a defined level of benefit. If you die early your family is paid out but if you die late, well you might run out of cash before your time.

    The system that GM and other older, large companies have has largely been canceled. My first employer had such a system but I started too late to be eligible. The Big 3 basically canceled such benefits for their non-union white collar staff as well. In a bit of irony, the unions were of course unwilling to loose such a rich benefit even though it was clear years ago when the bill came due (mostly in the 1990s and later) it was really going to hurt the company. The irony is that back in the old days the unions claimed they wanted the blue collar workers to get the same benefits as the white collar guys. When the white collar guys started to suffer the unions didn't seem to want to match them. I suspect GM fired more white collar workers than they might have wanted to simply because the white collar guys didn't have the unions to help them hold onto jobs that had long since been made redundant or obsolete.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Submit a POTD
    By Wouter Melissen in forum Multimedia
    Replies: 3153
    Last Post: 05-10-2019, 05:28 PM
  2. Auto Motor und Sport Videos - Are you interested ?
    By Gt1Street in forum Multimedia
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 09:10 PM
  3. Holden Deawoo SAAB????
    By crisis in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 01:05 PM
  4. US auto sales dive again in Sept. '08
    By Dino Scuderia in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 03:50 PM
  5. PWR to new Super Cheap Auto Racing Team
    By v8chick in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-23-2005, 02:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •