If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
C. E. White wrote:
> "dr_jeff" > wrote in message > ... > >> waste of paper. Actually, newspapers and magazines are wastes of >> paper, too, now that I can get them on the internet for free (and >> soon, I hope, on my iPad - and, no - the iPad isn't an internet >> feminine hygiene product). > > Have you actually gotten an iPad? Till now I have avioded Apple > products for my own use. But the SO has an iPod Touch which she really > likes. My son has a regular iPod Classic which he likes. I keep > hearing the hype about the iPad and think I might get one, but I am > not sure if I'd really use it. If you have one, I'd love to hear your > thoughts. > > Ed I had been planning on replacing my iPhone with the latest version when it comes out over the summer. Now, I am thinking about getting the iPad (just WiFi) and keeping the old version of the iPhone for another year (I have a year-old 3G 16 GB version). I won't be able to get 3G data on the iPad, but I am in places where I can get WiFi enough (like my home and work), that that shouldn't be an issue. I wish I knew what the 4G iPhone will do when it comes out. I suspect that only important thing I will be giving up is a better camera. I shall live without it, I think. Jeff |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> > wrote in message > ... >> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about >>> the >>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be >>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is >>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of >>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere >>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They >>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but >>> even >>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new >>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still >>> it >>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads. >>> >>> Ed >> >> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler. >> >> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good >> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars, >> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But >> I suspect they advertise slow movers more. > > Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my > favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the > cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last > Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with > Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and > Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials. > > It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV. > > Ed But Toyota is value added. You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC. -- Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
Canuck57 wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ... >>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about >>>> the >>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be >>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is >>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of >>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere >>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They >>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but >>>> even >>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new >>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still >>>> it >>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads. >>>> >>>> Ed >>> >>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler. >>> >>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good >>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars, >>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But >>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more. >> >> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my >> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the >> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last >> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with >> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and >> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials. >> >> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV. >> >> Ed > > But Toyota is value added. > > You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC. The car sales pay for the ads, indirectly. Not the loans. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On 05/04/2010 9:30 AM, jim beam wrote:
> On 04/05/2010 08:20 AM, C. E. White wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ... >>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about >>>> the >>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be >>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is >>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of >>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere >>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They >>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but >>>> even >>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new >>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still >>>> it >>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads. >>>> >>>> Ed >>> >>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler. >>> >>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good >>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars, >>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But >>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more. >> >> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my >> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the >> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last >> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with >> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and >> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials. >> >> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV. >> >> Ed >> > > like the taxpayer is paying for your client to ship their jobs overseas? It is inevitable autos are imported like PCs, TVs, iPods, furnature, toys, kitchen anything...etc... Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA auto maker. Even GM will import most autos if they get away from being Government Motors. DC will sell GM as DC is starting to feel the debts curse. I know I will not buy UAW/CAW after they sold out fellow tax paying workers with the bailout gouge. Kia did real good in March sales too as people are discovering they are good cars and more afordable than many a big names. -- Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On 04/05/2010 10:04 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 9:30 AM, jim beam wrote: >> On 04/05/2010 08:20 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>> > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about >>>>> the >>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be >>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is >>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of >>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere >>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They >>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but >>>>> even >>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new >>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still >>>>> it >>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler. >>>> >>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good >>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars, >>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But >>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more. >>> >>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my >>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the >>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last >>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with >>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and >>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials. >>> >>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> like the taxpayer is paying for your client to ship their jobs overseas? > > It is inevitable autos are imported like PCs, TVs, iPods, furnature, > toys, kitchen anything...etc... > > Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less > money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA > auto maker. so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't? how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using european sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and higher infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.? wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur that can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn around and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political dissidents, and steals our intellectual property? > > Even GM will import most autos if they get away from being Government > Motors. DC will sell GM as DC is starting to feel the debts curse. > > I know I will not buy UAW/CAW after they sold out fellow tax paying > workers with the bailout gouge. > > Kia did real good in March sales too as people are discovering they are > good cars and more afordable than many a big names. > -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
"jim beam" > wrote in message
t... > so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using > locally sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't? I believe that if you include only "direct" costs, GM does manufacture vehicles at a profit. They just don't make enough per vehicle to cover all the overhead costs (pensions, benefits, interest, etc.). Not all Toyota are produced in the US and even the ones that are don't use 100% US sourced componets. The highest domestic content Toyota is the Sienna, which is about 85% doemstic content. The non-hybrid Camrys are about 75% domestic content. Depsite all youer hyperbolic claims with regards to out sourcing, GM still has the highest average domestic content for US sold vehicles of any of the major auto manufacturers. It is irrational for you to praise Toyota for the domestic content of its US vehicle and then turn around a trash GM for building vehicles with a higher average level of domestic content. It is clear you have an axe to grind with GM. It is also clear that you don't care about the truth. In the US, Toyota has lower labor costs and is not saddled with the pension costs for retired UAW workers. Toyota was not as dependent on the revenues from SUVs and Trucks as was the case for GM. Neither is Toyota as dependent on US revenue as is GM. When the SUV/Truck market in particular, and the auto market in general, crashed, Toyota was not as badly hit as GM, although like GM, they went to their home (Japan) government for financial assistance. And like GM, Toyota benefited immensely from various US and Local Government auto subsidies (cash for clunkers, hybrid rebates, tax breaks for plants, etc). Loaning money to GM was not a great idea. But even worse was the way the US Government eventually nationalized GM and gave it to the UAW. Maybe it will work out, but I can't see how it was legal. The Government should have let GM go into bankruptcy. But they didn't. > how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using > european sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and > higher infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.? GM has been losing money in Eurpoe for at least the last 2 years . Unfortunately it is hard to find the GM annual reports for 2009 and 2008 on line. They seem to be lost between the new "GM" and the old "GM" (now Motors Liquidation Corp). > wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur > that can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn > around and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist > dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political > dissidents, and steals our intellectual property? How is GM any different than Toyota? Toyota and it subsiduaries have set up numerous plants in China. Why is it OK for Toyota to operate in China and not for GM to do the same? Have you checked the labels on many things you buy lately? Do you trash any manufactuer who uses Chinese made parts in the items they sell? If so, the list of comapnies you are attacking must be very long indeed. Ed |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On 04/05/2010 11:44 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> "jim > wrote in message > t... > >> so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using >> locally sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't? > > I believe that if you include only "direct" costs, GM does manufacture > vehicles at a profit. They just don't make enough per vehicle to cover > all the overhead costs (pensions, benefits, interest, etc.). > > Not all Toyota are produced in the US and even the ones that are don't > use 100% US sourced componets. The highest domestic content Toyota is > the Sienna, which is about 85% doemstic content. The non-hybrid Camrys > are about 75% domestic content. Depsite all youer hyperbolic claims > with regards to out sourcing, GM still has the highest average > domestic content for US sold vehicles of any of the major auto > manufacturers. It is irrational for you to praise Toyota for the > domestic content of its US vehicle and then turn around a trash GM for > building vehicles with a higher average level of domestic content. It > is clear you have an axe to grind with GM. It is also clear that you > don't care about the truth. > > In the US, Toyota has lower labor costs and is not saddled with the > pension costs for retired UAW workers. Toyota was not as dependent on > the revenues from SUVs and Trucks as was the case for GM. Neither is > Toyota as dependent on US revenue as is GM. When the SUV/Truck market > in particular, and the auto market in general, crashed, Toyota was not > as badly hit as GM, although like GM, they went to their home (Japan) > government for financial assistance. And like GM, Toyota benefited > immensely from various US and Local Government auto subsidies (cash > for clunkers, hybrid rebates, tax breaks for plants, etc). > > Loaning money to GM was not a great idea. But even worse was the way > the US Government eventually nationalized GM and gave it to the UAW. > Maybe it will work out, but I can't see how it was legal. The > Government should have let GM go into bankruptcy. But they didn't. > >> how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using >> european sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and >> higher infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.? > > GM has been losing money in Eurpoe for at least the last 2 years . > Unfortunately it is hard to find the GM annual reports for 2009 and > 2008 on line. They seem to be lost between the new "GM" and the old > "GM" (now Motors Liquidation Corp). > >> wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur >> that can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn >> around and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist >> dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political >> dissidents, and steals our intellectual property? > > How is GM any different than Toyota? Toyota and it subsiduaries have > set up numerous plants in China. Why is it OK for Toyota to operate in > China and not for GM to do the same? Have you checked the labels on > many things you buy lately? Do you trash any manufactuer who uses > Chinese made parts in the items they sell? If so, the list of > comapnies you are attacking must be very long indeed. > > Ed > > oh ed, i'm so flattered you're condescending to shine some of your best truth twisting and bull****ting resources on me. but let's keep this short: 1. your client is importing significant chinese-made components for use here in the u.s. 2. that's robbing u.s. suppliers of business, and u.s. taxpayers of jobs. 3. the u.s. taxpayer is paying for #1 & #2. 4. toyota manufactures in china FOR THE CHINESE MARKET, NOT THE U.S. MARKET. 5. toyota has not been sucking at the u.s. taxpayer's teat for the last 20 years. now, you go tell your clients and your buddies that work inside the beltway, that the taxpayer is ****ed and is going to pay back for this deceit and robbery. you can't fool all the proles all the time ed. astroturfing shill. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
"jim beam" > wrote in message t... > 1. your client is importing significant chinese-made components for > use here in the u.s. I don't have a client, so this statment is ridiculous. How many US companies aren't importing at least some items from China? Do you attack any company doing buisness in China? I'll bet significant portions of the very computer you are using to post to usenet were made in China. Maybe you should stop supporting the Chinese by smashing your computer now... > 2. that's robbing u.s. suppliers of business, and u.s. taxpayers of > jobs. Robbing is bit strong. Are you for or against free trade? Should the US Government erect trade barrier to prevent the importation of foreign auto components? On the one hand you attack GM for bad management and taking US Government loans. On the other hand you don't want them to source components form the low cost suppleirs. Do you think GM buys parts in China becasue they like the Chinese? I'd prefer to buy US made items and do so when possible. Unfortunately it is very difficult to do in many cases (clothes, electronics). I still don't see how you can attack GM and then praise Toyota, when Toyota is repsonible for moving far more jobs offshore than GM is. > 3. the u.s. taxpayer is paying for #1 & #2. I am not in favor of this. However, as I keep pointing out Toyota has also benefited from US government subsidies. > 4. toyota manufactures in china FOR THE CHINESE MARKET, NOT THE U.S. > MARKET. And you know this how? I see you finally found your caps shift key. Printing something in all caps doesn't make it true. But even if true, it is a difference without a distinction. Both companies are operating in China. Both companies are supporting all the horrors you associate with China. Whether some of the parts Toyota is making in China are shipped to the US or not is irrelevant (but I think it is very unlikely that Toyota is not importing parts from China). Toyota's operations in China are supporting the same country you trash GM for supporting. Your position on this (ie. Toyota's actions compared to GM's) is both hypocritical and irrational. . > 5. toyota has not been sucking at the u.s. taxpayer's teat for the > last 20 years. And GM has? I am pretty sure that for most of the last 20 yers GM has paid significant US income taxes. GM dealers have paid more. Income and SS Taxes on GM workers have been significant. Sales taxes on GM vehciles are significant, etc., etc., etc. I suspect if you add up all the government revenue associated with GM produced vehicles it exceeds the recent loans to GM. I can't prove it, but I know you cannot prove the opposite. And Toyota has been getting significant tax breaks for at least the last 14 years if you include all the incentives from various states to Toyota to induce Toyota to locate plants in their jurisdictions. The recentl hybrid tax credits were essentially a subsidy to Toyota. The cash for clunkers program was a nother subsidy that benefited Toyota greatly. > now, you go tell your clients and your buddies that work inside the > beltway, that the taxpayer is ****ed and is going to pay back for > this deceit and robbery. you can't fool all the proles all the time > ed. astroturfing shill. I should know better than to respond to you comments, but I just can't stand to sit by and watch you spew your vennon without commenting.. I know you'll never admit your comments are inspired by some sort of insane and itrrational hatered of GM, but at least others might understand you are spiteful, irrational (at least with regards to GM) and narrow minded. Ed |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On 05/04/2010 11:02 AM, dr_jeff wrote:
> Canuck57 wrote: >> On 05/04/2010 9:20 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>> > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> On 05/04/2010 6:02 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>>>> I was watching CBS news last Friday. One segment was talking about >>>>> the >>>>> increase in car sales in April. They said the yearly rate would be >>>>> something like 12 million cars assuming the sales increase is >>>>> maintained. Later they were talking about car ads and the amount of >>>>> money spent on ads. The segement claimed that in 2010 somewhere >>>>> between 14 to 16 Billion dollars would be spent on car ads. They >>>>> weren't clear on whether that included local dealership ads, but >>>>> even >>>>> if it does, it seems like a lot of money. It is over $1,100 per new >>>>> car. I suppose you might spread it over used cars also, but still >>>>> it >>>>> seems like a lot of money per car in ads. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> And think, much of it is taxpayers money from GM& Chrysler. >>>> >>>> Be interesting to see the actual per vehicle cost per model. Good >>>> cars sell themselves an say 16 billion over 12 million cars, >>>> knocking $1333 off the price might go further would be average. But >>>> I suspect they advertise slow movers more. >>> >>> Another way to look at this - Car ads are paying for some of my >>> favorite TV programs. I think Toyota alone paid enough to cover the >>> cost of braodcasting the NCAA Final Four Basketball Games last >>> Saturday. Seemed like every other commercial was from Toyota, with >>> Ford covering at least another third. Throw in a few from GM and >>> Subaru and there was no time left for deodarant commercials. >>> >>> It seems like Beer and Car Ads are paying for most of my "free"TV. >>> >>> Ed >> >> But Toyota is value added. >> >> You paid for GM. Ok, you haven't, but it is on your debt tab in DC. > > The car sales pay for the ads, indirectly. Not the loans. GM would not be having ads if it were not for our taxpayer funded debt. -- Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Cost per Car of Ads...
On 05/04/2010 11:40 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> Two huge reasons. First is net household incomes are down big time. Less >> money for autos. More taxes coming too. No pricing elasticity for any NA >> auto maker. > > so how is it that toyota can manufacture vehicles in n.a., using locally > sourced n.a. componentry, and make a profit, but g.m. can't? Good question. Better management, less union, better design, better reputation making for better pricing. > how is it that g.m. can manufacture in europe at a profit using european > sourced componentry, significantly higher labor costs and higher > infrastructure costs, but they can't in n.a.? Lack of NA management and no UAW/CAW. More automation. Better local business practices with suppliers. Stricter (although still inadaquate) pension and benefits maangement. > wtf do our politicians think they're doing bailing out a dinosaur that > can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag and who then turn around > and outsource their jobs and component supply to a communist > dictatorship that ignores human rights, slaughters political dissidents, > and steals our intellectual property? Don't ask me. I only have a theory and it goes like this. Lots of the heads of these are Harvard boys. Barack Obama - US President, head of the biggest debtor of them all. Michael Ignatieff - LPC Leader, wants more debt and taxes, pro bailout. Rick Wagoner - Former GM CEO, bankrupt. Robert Nardelli - Chrysler CEO, bankrupt. Stephen Feinberg - Cerberus/Chrysler and GMAC, bankrupt. I call them the Harvard Bailout Boyz. All were very much all for bailouts. But to know why I believe there is a link is Carlyle's client list. Remember Carlyle also got Lehmann assets at firesale prices which had a GM component to it. What is with Carlyle? Bush Sr. and Dan Quayle come to mind for starters. But there are others but the names escape me. But one important one is Osama Bin Laden's brother in Saudi Arabia. Ever wonder why Osama, sorry, Obama bowed so perfectly when in Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps why Bush never could get Osama Bin Laden? Maybe why Obama doesn't go after Osama? Unions, they were just pawns, used like pawns too. They get a lot of heat, but willing they were to sellout fellow taxpayers for the perception of jobs. Sure helped the Canadian third string NDP (socialist/union) party try to bribe the Bloc party for their votes in parliament for a NDP/Lib/Bloc coupe d'etat. Fortuantely that failed as Harpo Conservative caved in and added to GM's & Chrysler's bailout. Also wrote off $500M of Chryslers tax debt, pretty heavly load of corruption for the Canadian tax base. I do believe there are influences going on revolving around money. Ask yourself why some banks got bailouts and others didn't? Who were their clients? Heck, if I have a billion on deposit with a bankrupt bank you can bet your boots I would be calling senators, congress people and the president. I am sure if my last name was Buffet, Gates, Rockerfeller, Walton and a list of others I would get the presidents ear for 5 minutes. And what is $2 million to "contribute" around to assure your uninsured bank account does not discipate in DC red ink. Bush Jr started this (remember his dad's ties with Carlyle and needing a job post election), Obama was swiftly brought in as Mr Fast Track to the top and carried the bailout torch well... can't let honest Palin see the book, OMG... What would happen if internal DC bad doings went public? Then there is the masonic thing, but will leave it up to you. Just a theory, would make a good fiction suspense movie though. >> Even GM will import most autos if they get away from being Government >> Motors. DC will sell GM as DC is starting to feel the debts curse. >> >> I know I will not buy UAW/CAW after they sold out fellow tax paying >> workers with the bailout gouge. >> >> Kia did real good in March sales too as people are discovering they are >> good cars and more afordable than many a big names. >> > > -- Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cost of oil vs profit | Studemania | Driving | 0 | July 23rd 08 12:40 AM |
Pay Dealer Cost on a New BMW | health3.com.Cn | BMW | 0 | April 4th 08 04:56 PM |
cost | [email protected] | Honda | 3 | October 1st 07 04:15 PM |
New Headlamps -- cost v. value | '96 black on, black in, black over | Mazda | 3 | December 29th 04 02:12 AM |
R-12 Cost/Value | Tom Howlin | Mazda | 6 | November 4th 04 10:25 PM |