Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005

OR

For the transition period from                    to                    

Commission file number 1-13395

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

(704) 566-2400

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer  ¨            Accelerated filer  x            Non-accelerated filer  ¨

Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant is a shell company as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.    ¨  Yes    x  No

The aggregate market value of the voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $626,656,401 based upon the closing sales price of the registrant’s Class A common stock on June 30, 2005 of $21.26 per share. As of March 1, 2006 there were 30,054,862 shares of Class A common stock, par value $.01 per share, and 12,029,375 shares of Class B common stock, par value $.01 per share, outstanding.

Documents incorporated by reference. Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 20, 2006 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

FORM 10-K TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains numerous “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements address our future objectives, plans and goals, as well as our intent, beliefs and current expectations regarding future operating performance, and can generally be identified by words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “foresee” and other similar words or phrases. Specific events addressed by these forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to:

These forward-looking statements are based on our current estimates and assumptions and involve various risks and uncertainties. As a result, you are cautioned that these forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, and that actual results could differ materially from those projected in these forward-looking statements. Factors which may cause actual results to differ materially from our projections include those risks described in Item 1A of this Form 10-K and elsewhere in this report, as well as:

3

Table of Contents

PART I

Sonic Automotive, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 1997. We are one of the largest automotive retailers in the United States. As of March 1, 2006, we operated 175 dealership franchises at 152 dealership locations, representing 37 different brands of cars and light trucks, and 38 collision repair centers in 15 states. Each of our dealerships provides comprehensive services including (1) sales of both new and used cars and light trucks; (2) sales of replacement parts and performance of vehicle maintenance; warranty, paint and repair services; and (3) arrangement of extended service contracts, financing and insurance and other aftermarket products (collectively, “F&I”) for our automotive customers.

The following charts depict the diversity of our sources of revenue and gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2005:

Our dealership network is geographically organized into divisional and regional dealership groups. As of December 31, 2005, we operated dealerships in the following geographic markets:

4

Table of Contents

During 2005, we acquired five dealerships, representing five franchises, disposed of 13 dealerships, representing 20 franchises, and terminated two franchises. We expect to continue to limit our acquisition activity to approximately 10% of annual revenues each year. This will allow us to continue to reduce our leverage, maintain liquidity for our dividend and share repurchase activities and also allow our management infrastructure to focus on improving operating performance and integrating acquired dealerships. For additional discussion regarding our growth and the effect on our liquidity, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

The automotive retailing industry remains highly fragmented and we believe that further consolidation is likely. We believe that attractive acquisition opportunities continue to exist for dealership groups with the capital and experience to identify, acquire and professionally manage dealerships.

BUSINESS STRATEGY

Further Develop Strategic Markets and Brands.    Our growth strategy is focused on metropolitan markets, predominantly in the Southeast, Southwest, Midwest and California, that on average are experiencing population growth that exceeds the national average. Where practicable, we also seek to acquire stable franchises that we believe have above average sales prospects. A majority of our dealerships are either luxury or mid-line import brands. For the year ended December 31, 2005, 79.4% of our total new vehicle revenue was generated by import and luxury dealerships, which generally have higher operating margins and lower inventory levels. We expect this trend toward more import and luxury dealerships to continue in the near future as we enrich our portfolio of dealerships and replace revenue lost through divestitures of under-performing dealerships.

The following table depicts the breakdown of our total new vehicle revenue by brand for each of the past three years:

5

Table of Contents

Increase Sales of Higher Margin Products and Services.    We continue to pursue opportunities to increase our sales of higher-margin products and services by expanding the following:

Finance, Insurance and Other Aftermarket Products (“F&I”):    Each sale of a new or used vehicle provides us with an opportunity to earn financing fees and insurance commissions and to sell extended service contracts and other aftermarket products. We currently offer a wide range of nonrecourse financing, leasing, other aftermarket products, service contracts and insurance products to our customers. We believe there are opportunities at acquired dealerships to increase earnings from the sale of finance, other aftermarket products, insurance and service contracts. We are continuing to emphasize menu-selling techniques and other best practices to increase our sales of extended service contracts.

Rate spread is another term for the commission earned by our dealerships for arranging vehicle financing for consumers. The amount of the commission could be zero, a flat fee or an actual spread between the interest rate charged to the consumer and the interest rate provided by the direct financing source (bank, credit union or manufacturers’ captive finance company). We have established caps on the potential rate spread our dealerships can earn with all finance sources. We believe the rate spread we earn for arranging financing represents value to the consumer in numerous ways, including the following:

Parts, Service & Repair (“Fixed Operations”):    Each of our dealerships offers a fully integrated service and parts department. Manufacturers permit warranty work to be performed only at franchised dealerships. As a result, franchised dealerships are uniquely qualified to perform work covered by manufacturer warranties on increasingly complex vehicles. We believe we can continue to grow our profitable parts and service business by using our access to capital to increase service capacity, investing in sophisticated equipment and well trained technicians, using variable rate pricing structures, focusing on customer service and efficiently managing our parts inventory. In addition, we believe our emphasis on selling extended service contracts will drive further service and parts business in our dealerships as we increase the potential to retain a current parts and service customer beyond the term of the standard manufacturer warranty period.

We operated collision repair centers at 38 locations at March 1, 2006. We believe we can continue to improve these operations by capitalizing on the synergies between our franchised dealerships and our collision repair centers. These synergies include access to customer networks, ready access to parts and the ability to share employees.

Certified Pre-Owned Vehicles.    Various manufacturers provide franchised dealers the opportunity to sell certified pre-owned (“CPO”) vehicles. This certification process extends the standard manufacturer warranty on the particular vehicle. We typically earn higher revenues and gross margins on CPO vehicles compared to non-certified vehicles. We also believe the extended manufacturer warranty increases our potential to retain the pre-owned purchaser as a future parts and service customer. Since CPO warranty work can only be performed at

6

Table of Contents

franchised dealerships, we believe the used vehicle business will become more clearly segmented and CPO sales and similar products will become a larger share of used vehicle sales.

Emphasize Expense Control.    We continually focus on controlling expenses and expanding margins at the dealerships we acquire and integrate into our organization. We manage these costs, such as advertising and variable compensation expenses, so that they are generally related to vehicle sales and can be adjusted in response to changes in vehicle sales volume. Salespersons, sales managers, service managers, parts managers, service advisors, service technicians and the majority of other non-clerical dealership personnel are paid either a commission or a modest salary plus commissions. In addition, dealership management compensation is tied to individual dealership profitability. We believe we can further manage these types of costs through best practices, standardization of compensation plans, controlled oversight and accountability, reducing associate turnover and centralizing and standardizing processes and systems such as a single dealership management system, accounting office consolidation, payroll system consolidation and inventory management technology.

Achieve High Levels of Customer Satisfaction.    We focus on maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction. Our personalized sales process is designed to satisfy customers by providing high-quality vehicles in a positive, “consumer friendly” buying environment. Several manufacturers offer specific financial incentives on a per vehicle basis if certain Customer Satisfaction Index (“CSI”) levels (which vary by manufacturer) are achieved by a dealership. In addition, all manufacturers consider CSI scores in approving acquisitions. In order to keep management focused on customer satisfaction, we include CSI results as a component of our incentive-based compensation programs. Based on data from our manufacturers, for the year ended December 31, 2005, 68.1% and 63.9% of our dealerships exceeded the national average for customer satisfaction in sales and service, respectively.

Reduce Leverage.    In connection with our acquisition pace of 10% of annual revenues and our targeted franchise divestiture program, we are also focused on reducing our leverage. Prior to 2004, we maintained a long-term debt to total capital ratio of approximately 48% to 52%, depending on the timing of our acquisitions. We believe that the current acquisition pace will allow us to reduce our long-term debt to total capital ratio to 40% over the next few years. At December 31, 2005, our long-term debt to total capital ratio net of cash and cash equivalents was 46.0%.

Relationships with Manufacturers

Each of our dealerships operates under a separate franchise or dealer agreement that governs the relationship between the dealership and the manufacturer. In general, each dealer agreement specifies the location of the dealership for the sale of vehicles and for the performance of certain approved services in a specified market area. The designation of such areas generally does not guarantee exclusivity within a specified territory. In addition, most manufacturers allocate vehicles on a “turn and earn” basis that rewards high volume. A dealer agreement requires the dealer to meet specified standards regarding showrooms, facilities and equipment for servicing vehicles, inventories, minimum net working capital, personnel training and other aspects of the business. Each dealer agreement also gives the related manufacturer the right to approve the dealer operator and any material change in management or ownership of the dealership. Each manufacturer may terminate a dealer agreement under certain circumstances, such as a change in control of the dealership without manufacturer approval, the impairment of the reputation or financial condition of the dealership, the death, removal or withdrawal of the dealer operator, the conviction of the dealership or the dealership’s owner or dealer operator of certain crimes, the failure to adequately operate the dealership or maintain wholesale financing arrangements, insolvency or bankruptcy of the dealership or a material breach of other provisions of the dealer agreement.

Many automobile manufacturers have developed policies regarding public ownership of dealerships. To the extent that new or amended manufacturer policies restrict the number of dealerships which may be owned by a dealership group, or the transferability of our common stock, such policies could have a material adverse effect on us. We believe that we will be able to renew at expiration substantially all of our existing franchise and dealer agreements. Policies implemented by manufacturers include the following restrictions:

7

Table of Contents

Many states have placed limitations upon manufacturers’ and distributors’ ability to sell new motor vehicles directly to customers in their respective states in an effort to protect dealers from practices they believe constitute unfair competition. In general, these statutes make it unlawful for a manufacturer or distributor to compete with a new motor vehicle dealer in the same brand operating under an agreement or franchise from the manufacturer or distributor in the relevant market area. Certain states, such as Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia, limit the amount of time that a manufacturer may temporarily operate a dealership.

In addition, all of the states in which our dealerships currently do business require manufacturers to show “good cause” for terminating or failing to renew a dealer’s franchise agreement. Further, each of the states provides some method for dealers to challenge manufacturers’ attempts to establish dealerships of the same line-make in their relevant market area.

Competition

The retail automotive industry is highly competitive. Depending on the geographic market, we compete both with dealers offering the same brands and product lines as ours and dealers offering other manufacturers’ vehicles. We also compete for vehicle sales with auto brokers, leasing companies and services offered on the Internet that provide customer referrals to other dealerships or who broker vehicle sales between customers and other dealerships. We compete with small, local dealerships and with large multi-franchise auto dealerships.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in vehicle sales are the marketing campaigns conducted by manufacturers, the ability of dealerships to offer an attractive selection of the most popular vehicles, the location of dealerships, pricing (including manufacturer rebates and other special offers) and the quality of customer service. Other competitive factors include customer preference for makes of automobiles and manufacturer warranties.

In addition to competition for vehicle sales, we also compete with other auto dealers, service stores, auto parts retailers and independent mechanics in providing parts and service. We believe that the principal competitive factors in parts and service sales are price, the use of factory-approved replacement parts, factory-trained technicians, the familiarity with a dealer’s makes and models and the quality of customer service. A number of regional and national chains offer selected parts and service at prices that may be lower than our prices.

In arranging or providing financing for our customers’ vehicle purchases, we compete with a broad range of financial institutions. In addition, financial institutions are now offering F&I products through the Internet, which may reduce our profits on these items. We believe that the principal competitive factors in providing financing are convenience, interest rates and contract terms.

Our success depends, in part, on national and regional automobile-buying trends, local and regional economic factors and other regional competitive pressures. Conditions and competitive pressures affecting the markets in which we operate, such as price-cutting by dealers in these areas, or in any new markets we enter, could adversely affect us, although the retail automobile industry as a whole might not be affected.

Governmental Regulations and Environmental Matters

Numerous federal and state regulations govern our business of marketing, selling, financing and servicing automobiles. We are also subject to laws and regulations relating to business corporations generally.

8

Table of Contents

Under the laws of the states in which we currently operate as well as the laws of other states into which we may expand, we must obtain a license in order to establish, operate or relocate a dealership or operate an automotive repair service. These laws also regulate our conduct of business, including our sales, operating, advertising, financing and employment practices. These laws also include federal and state wage-hour, anti-discrimination and other employment practices laws.

Our financing activities with customers are subject to federal truth-in-lending, consumer privacy, consumer leasing and equal credit opportunity regulations as well as state and local motor vehicle finance laws, installment finance laws, usury laws and other installment sales laws. Some states regulate finance fees that may be paid as a result of vehicle sales.

Federal, state and local environmental regulations, including regulations governing air and water quality, the clean-up of contaminated property and the use, storage, handling, recycling and disposal of gasoline, oil and other materials, also apply to us and our dealership properties.

We believe that we comply in all material respects with the laws affecting our business. However, claims arising out of actual or alleged violations of laws may be asserted against us or our dealerships by individuals or governmental entities, and may expose us to significant damages or other penalties, including possible suspension or revocation of our licenses to conduct dealership operations and fines.

As with automobile dealerships generally, and service, parts and body shop operations in particular, our business involves the use, storage, handling and contracting for recycling or disposal of hazardous or toxic substances or wastes and other environmentally sensitive materials. Our business also involves the past and current operation and/or removal of above ground and underground storage tanks containing such substances or wastes. Accordingly, we are subject to regulation by federal, state and local authorities that establish health and environmental quality standards, provide for liability related to those standards, and in certain circumstances provide penalties for violations of those standards. We are also subject to laws, ordinances and regulations governing remediation of contamination at facilities we own or operate or to which we send hazardous or toxic substances or wastes for treatment, recycling or disposal.

We do not have any known material environmental liabilities and we believe that compliance with environmental laws and regulations will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. However, soil and groundwater contamination is known to exist at certain properties used by us. Further, environmental laws and regulations are complex and subject to frequent change. In addition, in connection with our acquisitions, it is possible that we will assume or become subject to new or unforeseen environmental costs or liabilities, some of which may be material. We cannot assure you that compliance with current or amended, or new or more stringent, laws or regulations, stricter interpretations of existing laws or the future discovery of environmental conditions will not require additional expenditures by us, or that such expenditures will not be material.

Executive Officers of the Registrant

The executive officers are elected annually by, and serve at the discretion of, our Board of Directors. Our executive officers as of the date of this Form 10-K, are as follows:

9

Table of Contents

O. Bruton Smith, 79, is our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and a director and has served as such since our organization in January 1997, and he currently is a director and executive officer of many of our subsidiaries. Mr. Smith has worked in the retail automobile industry since 1966. Mr. Smith is also the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, a director and controlling stockholder of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (“SMI”). SMI is a public company traded on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”). Among other things, SMI owns and operates the following NASCAR racetracks: Atlanta Motor Speedway, Bristol Motor Speedway, Lowe’s Motor Speedway, Las Vegas Motor Speedway, Infineon Raceway and Texas Motor Speedway. He is also an executive officer or a director of most of SMI’s operating subsidiaries.

B. Scott Smith, 38, is our Vice Chairman and Chief Strategic Officer. Prior to his appointment as Vice Chairman and Chief Strategic Officer in October 2002, Mr. Smith was President and Chief Operating Officer from April 1997 until October 2002. Mr. Smith has been a director of our company since our organization in January 1997. Mr. Smith also serves as a director and executive officer of many of our subsidiaries. Mr. Smith, who is the son of O. Bruton Smith, has been an executive officer of Town & Country Ford since 1993, and was a minority owner of both Town & Country Ford and Fort Mill Ford before our acquisition of these dealerships in 1997. Mr. Smith became the General Manager of Town & Country Ford in November 1992 where he remained until his appointment as President and Chief Operating Officer in April 1997. Mr. Smith has over nineteen years experience in the automobile dealership industry.

Jeffrey C. Rachor, 44, is our President and Chief Operating Officer. Prior to his promotion to President in April 2004, Mr. Rachor served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, a position he held since October 2002. In May 1999, Mr. Rachor was appointed a director of our company and in November 1999 was promoted to executive officer status as Executive Vice President of Retail Operations. He originally joined us as the Regional Vice President—Mid-South Region upon our 1997 acquisition of dealerships in Chattanooga, Tennessee and was subsequently promoted to Vice President of Retail Operations in September 1998 and again promoted to Executive Vice President—Retail Operations in October 1999. Mr. Rachor has over twenty years of experience in automobile retailing and was the Chief Operating Officer of the Chattanooga dealerships from 1989 until their acquisition by us in 1997.

David P. Cosper, 51, is our Executive Vice President and Treasurer. Mr. Cosper was also appointed as our Chief Financial Officer, and will begin performing the functions of principal financial officer, effective on the first business day following the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Prior to assuming those positions, Mr. Cosper had served as Assistant Treasurer of Ford Motor Company since 2001. From 1979 when he joined Ford Motor Company, Mr. Cosper served in a variety of positions at Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Credit, including Vice President and Treasurer of Ford Motor Credit and Executive Director of Corporate Finance at Ford Motor Company. In such positions, Mr. Cosper was responsible for international treasury issues, risk management, trading and treasury operations, systems and accounting, as well as profit analysis, business planning and competitive and strategic analysis.

Mark J. Iuppenlatz, 46, is our Executive Vice President of Corporate Development. In April 2004, Mr. Iuppenlatz was promoted to Executive Vice President from Senior Vice President, a position which he had held since May 2002. Prior to May 2002, he served as our Vice President of Corporate Development from August 1999. Before joining us, Mr. Iuppenlatz served as the Executive Vice President—Acquisitions and Chief Operating Officer of Mar Mar Realty Trust (“MMRT”), a real estate investment trust specializing in sale/leaseback financing of automotive-related real estate, from September 1998 to August 1999. From 1996 to September 1998, Mr. Iuppenlatz was employed by Brookdale Living Communities, Inc., a company that owns, operates, develops and manages luxury senior housing communities, where he was responsible for the company’s development operations. From 1994 to 1996, he served as Vice President of Schlotzky’s, Inc., a publicly traded restaurant chain. From 1991 to 1994, Mr. Iuppenlatz served in Spain as the director of marketing and the assistant director of development for Kepro S.A., a real estate development company.

10

Table of Contents

Employees

As of March 1, 2006, we employed approximately 11,300 people. We believe that our relationships with our employees are good. Approximately 240 of our employees, primarily service technicians in our Northern California markets, are represented by a labor union. Because of our dependence on the manufacturers, however, we may be affected by labor strikes, work slowdowns and walkouts at the manufacturer’s manufacturing facilities.

Company Information

Our website is located at www.sonicautomotive.com. Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports, as well as proxy statements and other information we file with, or furnish to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) are available free of charge on our website. We make these documents available as soon as reasonably practicable after we file them with, or furnish them to, the SEC. Except as otherwise stated in these documents, the information contained on our website or available by hyperlink from our website is not incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or other documents we file with, or furnish to, the SEC.

Risks Related to Our Indebtedness

Our significant indebtedness could materially adversely affect our financial health, limit our ability to finance future acquisitions and capital expenditures and prevent us from fulfilling our financial obligations.

As of December 31, 2005, our total outstanding indebtedness was approximately $1,757.3 million, including the following:

As of December 31, 2005, we had approximately $358.2 million available for additional borrowings under a revolving credit facility. We also had approximately $100.0 million available under a construction/mortgage credit facility for real estate acquisitions and new dealership construction. We also have significant additional capacity under the floor plan facilities. In addition, the indentures relating to our 8.625% Notes, 2002 Convertibles, 2005 Convertibles and other debt instruments allow us to incur additional indebtedness, including secured indebtedness.

On February 17, 2006, we refinanced our existing revolving credit facility and a portion of our existing floor plan facilities by entering into a new syndicated credit facility (the “New Credit Facility”) providing up to $350.0

11

Table of Contents

million in borrowing availability for working capital and general corporate purposes (the “Revolving Credit Sub-Facility”), up to $700.0 million in borrowing availability for new vehicle inventory floor plan financing, and up to $150.0 million in borrowing availability for used vehicle inventory floor plan financing.

The degree to which we are leveraged could have important consequences to the holders of our securities, including the following:

In addition, our debt agreements contain numerous covenants that limit our discretion with respect to business matters, including mergers or acquisitions, paying dividends, incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or disposing of assets.

An acceleration of our obligation to repay all or a substantial portion of our outstanding indebtedness would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our New Credit Facility, floor plan facilities and the indenture governing our 8.625% Notes contain numerous financial and operating covenants. A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under the applicable agreement or indenture. If a default were to occur, we may be unable to adequately finance our operations and the value of our common stock would be materially adversely affected. In addition, a default under one agreement or indenture could result in a default and acceleration of our repayment obligations under the other agreements or indentures, including the indentures governing our outstanding 2002 Convertibles, 2005 Convertibles and our 8.625% Notes, under the cross default provisions in those agreements or indentures. If a cross default were to occur, we may not be able to pay our debts or borrow sufficient funds to refinance them. Even if new financing were available, it may not be on terms acceptable to us. As a result of this risk, we could be forced to take actions that we otherwise would not take, or not take actions that we otherwise might take, in order to comply with the covenants in these agreements and indentures.

Our ability to make interest and principal payments when due to holders of our debt securities depends upon the receipt of sufficient funds from our subsidiaries.

Substantially all of our consolidated assets are held by our subsidiaries and substantially all of our consolidated cash flow and net income are generated by our subsidiaries. Accordingly, our cash flow and ability to service debt depends to a substantial degree on the results of operations of subsidiaries and upon the ability of our subsidiaries to provide us with cash. We may receive cash from our subsidiaries in the form of dividends, loans or otherwise. We may use this cash to service our debt obligations or for working capital. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to distribute cash to us or to make funds available to service debt. In addition, the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or make loans to us are subject to contractual limitations under the floor plan facilities, minimum net capital requirements under manufacturer franchise agreements and laws of the state in which a subsidiary is organized and depend to a significant degree on the results of operations of our subsidiaries and other business considerations.

12

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Relationships with Vehicle Manufacturers

Our operations may be adversely affected if one or more of our manufacturer franchise agreements is terminated or not renewed.

Each of our dealerships operates under a franchise agreement with the applicable automobile manufacturer or distributor. Without a franchise agreement, we cannot obtain new vehicles from a manufacturer. As a result, we are significantly dependent on our relationships with these manufacturers.

Manufacturers exercise a great degree of control over the operations of our dealerships through the franchise agreements. The franchise agreements govern, among other things, our ability to purchase vehicles from the manufacturer and to sell vehicles to customers. Each of our franchise agreements provides for termination or non-renewal for a variety of causes, including any unapproved change of ownership or management. Manufacturers may also have a right of first refusal if we seek to sell dealerships.

Actions taken by manufacturers to exploit their superior bargaining position in negotiating the terms of franchise agreements or renewals of these agreements or otherwise could also have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. We cannot assure you that any of our existing franchise agreements will be renewed or that the terms and conditions of such renewals will be favorable to us.

Our sales volume and profit margin on each sale may be materially adversely affected if manufacturers discontinue or change their incentive programs.

Our dealerships depend on the manufacturers for certain sales incentives, warranties and other programs that are intended to promote and support dealership new vehicle sales. Manufacturers routinely modify their incentive programs in response to changing market conditions. Some of the key incentive programs include:

Manufacturers are currently offering very favorable incentives to potential customers. A reduction or discontinuation of a manufacturer’s incentive programs may materially adversely affect our profitability.

We depend on manufacturers to supply us with sufficient numbers of popular and profitable new models.

Manufacturers typically allocate their vehicles among dealerships based on the sales history of each dealership. Supplies of popular new vehicles may be limited by the applicable manufacturer’s production capabilities. Popular new vehicles that are in limited supply typically produce the highest profit margins. We depend on manufacturers to provide us with a desirable mix of popular new vehicles. Our operating results may be materially adversely affected if we do not obtain a sufficient supply of these vehicles.

Adverse conditions affecting one or more key manufacturers may negatively impact our profitability.

During 2005, approximately 66.5% of our new vehicle revenue was derived from the sale of new vehicles manufactured by Ford, Honda, General Motors (including Cadillac), BMW and Toyota. Our success depends to a great extent on these manufacturers’:

13

Table of Contents

Events such as labor strikes that may adversely affect a manufacturer may also adversely affect us. In particular, labor strikes at a manufacturer that continue for a substantial period of time could have a material adverse effect on our business. Similarly, the delivery of vehicles from manufacturers at a time later than scheduled, which may occur particularly during periods of new product introductions, could limit sales of those vehicles during those periods. This has been experienced at some of our dealerships from time to time. Adverse conditions affecting these and other important aspects of manufacturers’ operations and public relations may adversely affect our ability to sell their automobiles and, as a result, significantly and detrimentally affect our profitability.

During 2005, the financial condition and operating results of both Ford and General Motors deteriorated significantly. As of December 31, 2005, we owned 25 Ford franchises (including Volvo, Land Rover, Lincoln and Mercury) and 41 General Motors (including Cadillac, Saab, Saturn, Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Hummer and Pontiac) franchises, respectively. Should the financial condition and operating results of either Ford or General Motors continue to significantly deteriorate, it is possible that the particular manufacturer could file for bankruptcy protection. Such a bankruptcy filing by either Ford or General Motors could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operation, financial condition or cash flows.

Manufacturer stock ownership restrictions may impair our ability to maintain or renew franchise agreements or issue additional equity.

Some of our franchise agreements prohibit transfers of any ownership interests of a dealership and, in some cases, its parent, without prior approval of the applicable manufacturer. A number of manufacturers impose restrictions on the transferability of our Class A common stock and our ability to maintain franchises if a person acquires a significant percentage of the voting power of our common stock. Our existing franchise agreements could be terminated if a person or entity acquires a substantial ownership interest in us or acquires voting power above certain levels without the applicable manufacturer’s approval. Violations of these levels by an investor are generally outside of our control and may result in the termination or non-renewal of existing franchise agreements or impair our ability to negotiate new franchise agreements for dealerships we acquire. In addition, if we cannot obtain any requisite approvals on a timely basis, we may not be able to issue additional equity or otherwise raise capital on terms acceptable to us. These restrictions may also prevent or deter a prospective acquiror from acquiring control of us. This could adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

The current holders of our Class B common stock maintain voting control over us. However, we are unable to prevent our stockholders from transferring shares of our common stock, including transfers by holders of the Class B common stock. If such transfer results in a change in control, it could result in the termination or non-renewal of one or more of our existing franchise agreements, the triggering of provisions in our agreements with certain manufacturers requiring us to sell our dealerships franchised with such manufacturers and/or a default under our credit arrangements.

Our dealers depend upon vehicle sales and, therefore, their success depends in large part upon customer demand for the particular vehicles they carry.

The success of our dealerships depends in large part on the overall success of the vehicle lines they carry. New vehicle sales generate the majority of our total revenue and lead to sales of higher-margin products and

14

Table of Contents

services such as finance, insurance, vehicle protection products and other aftermarket products, and parts and service operations. Although we have sought to limit our dependence on any one vehicle brand, we have focused our new vehicle sales operations in mid-line import and luxury brands.

Our failure to meet a manufacturer’s consumer satisfaction, financial and sales performance requirements may adversely affect our ability to acquire new dealerships and our profitability.

Many manufacturers attempt to measure customers’ satisfaction with their sales and warranty service experiences through manufacturer-determined consumer satisfaction index (“CSI”) scores. The components of CSI vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and are modified periodically. Franchise agreements also may impose financial and sales performance standards. Under our agreements with certain manufacturers, a dealership’s CSI scores, sales and financial performance may be considered a factor in evaluating applications for additional dealership acquisitions. From time to time, some of our dealerships have had difficulty meeting various manufacturers’ CSI requirements or performance standards. We cannot assure you that our dealerships will be able to comply with these requirements in the future. A manufacturer may refuse to consent to an acquisition of one of its franchises if it determines our dealerships do not comply with its CSI requirements or performance standards, which could impair the execution of our acquisition strategy. In addition, we receive incentive payments from the manufacturers based, in part, on CSI scores, which could be materially adversely affected if our CSI scores decline.

If state dealer laws are repealed or weakened, our dealerships will be more susceptible to termination, non-renewal or renegotiation of their franchise agreements.

State dealer laws generally provide that a manufacturer may not terminate or refuse to renew a franchise agreement unless it has first provided the dealer with written notice setting forth good cause and stating the grounds for termination or nonrenewal. Some state dealer laws allow dealers to file protests or petitions or attempt to comply with the manufacturer’s criteria within the notice period to avoid the termination or nonrenewal. Though unsuccessful to date, manufacturers’ lobbying efforts may lead to the repeal or revision of state dealer laws. If dealer laws are repealed in the states in which we operate, manufacturers may be able to terminate our franchises without providing advance notice, an opportunity to cure or a showing of good cause. Without the protection of state dealer laws, it may also be more difficult for our dealers to renew their franchise agreements upon expiration.

In addition, these laws restrict the ability of automobile manufacturers to directly enter the retail market in the future. If manufacturers obtain the ability to directly retail vehicles and do so in our markets, such competition could have a material adverse effect on us.

Risks Related to Our Acquisition Strategy

Manufacturers’ restrictions on acquisitions could limit our future growth.

We are required to obtain the approval of the applicable manufacturer before we can acquire an additional dealership franchise of that manufacturer. In determining whether to approve an acquisition, manufacturers may consider many factors such as our financial condition and CSI scores. Obtaining manufacturer approval of acquisitions also takes a significant amount of time, typically three to five months. We cannot assure you that manufacturers will approve future acquisitions or do so on a timely basis, which could impair the execution of our acquisition strategy.

Certain manufacturers also limit the number of its dealerships that we may own, our national market share of that manufacturer’s products or the number of dealerships we may own in a particular geographic area. In addition, under an applicable franchise agreement or under state law, a manufacturer may have a right of first refusal to acquire a dealership that we seek to acquire.

15

Table of Contents

A manufacturer may condition approval of an acquisition on the implementation of material changes in our operations or extraordinary corporate transactions, facilities improvements or other capital expenditures. If we are unable or unwilling to comply with these conditions, we may be required to sell the assets of that manufacturer’s dealerships or terminate our franchise agreement.

Failure to effectively integrate acquired dealerships with our existing operations could adversely affect our future operating results.

Our future operating results depend on our ability to integrate the operations of recently acquired dealerships, as well as dealerships we acquire in the future, with our existing operations. In particular, we need to integrate our management information systems, procedures and organizational structures, which can be difficult. Our growth strategy has focused on the pursuit of strategic acquisitions that either expand or complement our business.

We cannot assure you that we will effectively and profitably integrate the operations of these dealerships without substantial costs, delays or operational or financial problems, due to:

These factors could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may not adequately anticipate all of the demands that growth through acquisitions will impose.

The automobile retailing industry is considered a mature industry in which minimal growth is expected in total unit sales. Accordingly, our ability to generate higher revenue and earnings in future periods depends in large part on our ability to acquire additional dealerships, manage geographic expansion, control costs in our operations and consolidate both past and future dealership acquisitions into our existing operations. In pursuing a strategy of acquiring other dealerships, we face risks commonly encountered with growth through acquisitions. These risks include, but are not limited to:

16

Table of Contents

We may not adequately anticipate all of the demands that growth will impose on our systems, procedures and structures.

We may not be able to capitalize on acquisition opportunities because our financial resources available for acquisitions are limited.

We intend to finance our acquisitions with cash generated from operations, through issuances of our stock or debt securities and through borrowings under credit arrangements. We may not be able to obtain additional financing by issuing stock or debt securities due to the market price of our Class A common stock, overall market conditions or the need for manufacturer consent to the issuance of equity securities. Using cash to complete acquisitions could substantially limit our operating or financial flexibility. If we are unable to obtain financing on acceptable terms, we may be required to reduce the scope of our presently anticipated expansion, which could materially adversely affect our overall growth strategy.

In addition, we are dependent to a significant extent on our ability to finance our new vehicle inventory with “floor plan financing.” Floor plan financing arrangements allow us to borrow money to buy a particular vehicle from the manufacturer and pay off the loan when we sell that particular vehicle. We must obtain new floor plan financing or obtain consents to assume existing floor plan financing in connection with our acquisition of dealerships.

Substantially all the assets of our dealerships are pledged to secure the indebtedness under the New Credit Facility and our separate floor plan indebtedness with the respective captive finance subsidiaries of BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors. Three of the lenders under the New Credit Facility are the respective captive finance subsidiaries of BMW, Nissan and Toyota. These pledges may impede our ability to borrow from other sources. Moreover, because the identified manufacturer captive finance subsidiaries are either owned or affiliated with BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Nissan and Toyota, respectively, any deterioriation of our relationship with the particular captive finance subsidiary could adversely affect our relationship with the affiliated manufacturer, and vice-versa.

We may not be able to continue executing our acquisition strategy without the costs of future acquisitions escalating.

We have grown our business primarily through acquisitions. We may not be able to consummate any future acquisitions at acceptable prices and terms or identify suitable candidates. In addition, increased competition for acquisition candidates could result in fewer acquisition opportunities for us and higher acquisition prices. The magnitude, timing, pricing and nature of future acquisitions will depend upon various factors, including:

We may not be able to determine the actual financial condition of dealerships we acquire until after we complete the acquisition and take control of the dealerships.

The operating and financial condition of acquired businesses cannot be determined accurately until we assume control. Although we conduct what we believe to be a prudent level of investigation regarding the operating and financial condition of the businesses we purchase, in light of the circumstances of each transaction,

17

Table of Contents

an unavoidable level of risk remains regarding the actual operating condition of these businesses. Similarly, many of the dealerships we acquire, including our largest acquisitions, do not have financial statements audited or prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. We may not have an accurate understanding of the historical financial condition and performance of our acquired entities. Until we actually assume control of business assets and their operations, we may not be able to ascertain the actual value or understand the potential liabilities of the acquired entities and their operations.

Although O. Bruton Smith, our chairman and chief executive officer, and his affiliates have previously assisted us with obtaining financing, we cannot assure you that he will be willing or able to do so in the future.

Our obligations under the New Credit Facility are secured with a pledge of shares of common stock of Speedway Motorsports, Inc., a publicly traded owner and operator of automobile racing facilities. These shares of Speedway Motorsports common stock are beneficially owned by Sonic Financial Corporation (“SFC”), an entity controlled by Mr. Smith. Presently, the $350.0 million borrowing limit of the Revolving Credit Sub-Facility of the New Credit Facility is subject to a borrowing base calculation that is based, in part, on the value of the Speedway Motorsports shares pledged by SFC. Consequently, a withdrawal of this pledge by SFC or a significant decrease in the value of Speedway Motorsports common stock could reduce the amount we can currently borrow under the Revolving Credit Sub-Facility of the New Credit Facility.

Mr. Smith has also guaranteed additional indebtedness incurred to complete certain dealership acquisitions. Mr. Smith may not be willing or able to provide similar guarantees or credit support in the future. This could impair our ability to obtain acquisition financing on favorable terms.

Risks Related to the Automotive Retail Industry

Increasing competition among automotive retailers reduces our profit margins on vehicle sales and related businesses. Further, the use of the Internet in the car purchasing process could materially adversely affect us.

Automobile retailing is a highly competitive business. Our competitors include publicly and privately owned dealerships, some of which are larger and have greater financial and marketing resources than we do. Many of our competitors sell the same or similar makes of new and used vehicles that we offer in our markets at competitive prices. We do not have any cost advantage in purchasing new vehicles from manufacturers due to economies of scale or otherwise. In addition, the popularity of short-term vehicle leasing in the past few years has resulted, as these leases expire, in a large increase in the number of late model used vehicles available in the market, which puts added pressure on new and used vehicle margins. We typically rely on advertising, merchandising, sales expertise, service reputation and dealership location to sell new vehicles. Our revenues and profitability could be materially adversely affected if manufacturers decide to enter the retail market directly.

Our financing, insurance, vehicle protection product and other aftermarket product (“F&I”) business and other related businesses, which have higher margins than sales of new and used vehicles, are subject to strong competition from various financial institutions and other third parties.

The Internet has become a significant part of the sales process in our industry. Customers are using the Internet to compare pricing for cars and related F&I services, which may further reduce margins for new and used cars and profits for related F&I services. If Internet new vehicle sales are allowed to be conducted without the involvement of franchised dealers, our business could be materially adversely affected. In addition, other franchise groups have aligned themselves with services offered on the Internet or are investing heavily in the development of their own Internet capabilities, which could materially adversely affect our business.

18

Table of Contents

Our franchise agreements do not grant us the exclusive right to sell a manufacturer’s product within a given geographic area. Our revenues or profitability could be materially adversely affected if any of our manufacturers award franchises to others in the same markets where we operate or if existing franchised dealers increase their market share in our markets.

As we seek to acquire dealerships in new markets, we may face increasingly significant competition as we strive to gain market share through acquisitions or otherwise. Our gross margins may decline over time as we expand into markets where we do not have a leading position.

Our business will be harmed if overall consumer demand suffers from a severe or sustained downturn.

Our business is heavily dependent on consumer demand and preferences. Our revenues will be materially and adversely affected if there is a severe or sustained downturn in overall levels of consumer spending. Retail vehicle sales are cyclical and historically have experienced periodic downturns characterized by oversupply and weak demand. These cycles are often dependent on general economic conditions and consumer confidence, as well as the level of discretionary personal income and credit availability. Future recessions may have a material adverse effect on our retail business, particularly sales of new and used automobiles. In addition, severe or sustained increases in gasoline prices may lead to a reduction in automobile purchases or a shift in buying patterns from luxury and sport utility vehicle models (which typically provide high margins to retailers) to smaller, more economical vehicles (which typically have lower margins).

A decline of available financing in the sub-prime lending market has, and may continue to, adversely affect our sales of used vehicles.

A significant portion of vehicle buyers, particularly in the used car market, finance their purchases of automobiles. Sub-prime lenders have historically provided financing for consumers who, for a variety of reasons including poor credit histories and lack of down payment, do not have access to more traditional finance sources. Our recent experience suggests that sub-prime lenders have tightened their credit standards and may continue to apply these higher standards in the future. This has adversely affected our used vehicle sales. If sub-prime lenders continue to apply these higher standards or if there is any further tightening of credit standards used by sub-prime lenders or if there is any additional decline in the overall availability of credit in the sub-prime lending market, the ability of these consumers to purchase vehicles could be limited which could have a material adverse effect on our used car business, revenues and profitability.

Our business may be adversely affected by import product restrictions and foreign trade risks that may impair our ability to sell foreign vehicles profitably.

A significant portion of our new vehicle business involves the sale of vehicles, parts or vehicles composed of parts that are manufactured outside the United States. As a result, our operations are subject to customary risks of importing merchandise, including fluctuations in the relative values of currencies, import duties, exchange controls, trade restrictions, work stoppages and general political and socio-economic conditions in other countries. The United States or the countries from which our products are imported may, from time to time, impose new quotas, duties, tariffs or other restrictions, or adjust presently prevailing quotas, duties or tariffs, which may affect our operations and our ability to purchase imported vehicles and/or parts at reasonable prices.

The seasonality of our business magnifies the importance of second and third quarter operating results.

Our business is subject to seasonal variations in revenues. In our experience, demand for automobiles is generally lower during the first and fourth quarters of each year. We therefore receive a disproportionate amount of revenues generally in the second and third quarters and expect our revenues and operating results to be generally lower in the first and fourth quarters. Consequently, if conditions surface during the second and third quarters that impair vehicle sales, such as higher fuel costs, depressed economic conditions or similar adverse conditions, our revenues for the year could be disproportionately adversely affected.

19

Table of Contents

General Risks Related to Investing in Our Securities

Concentration of voting power and anti-takeover provisions of our charter, bylaws Delaware law and our dealer agreements may reduce the likelihood of any potential change of control.

Our common stock is divided into two classes with different voting rights. This dual class stock ownership allows the present holders of the Class B common stock to control us. Holders of Class A common stock have one vote per share on all matters. Holders of Class B common stock have 10 votes per share on all matters, except that they have only one vote per share on any transaction proposed or approved by the Board of Directors or a Class B common stockholder or otherwise benefiting the Class B common stockholders constituting a:

The holders of Class B common stock currently hold less than a majority of our outstanding common stock, but a majority of our voting power. This may prevent or discourage a change of control of us even if the action was favored by holders of Class A common stock.

Our charter and bylaws make it more difficult for our stockholders to take corporate actions at stockholders’ meetings. In addition, options under our 1997 Stock Option Plan and 2004 Stock Incentive Plan become immediately exercisable upon a change in control. Delaware law also makes it difficult for stockholders who have recently acquired a large interest in a company to consummate a business combination transaction with the company against its directors’ wishes. Finally, restrictions imposed by our dealer agreements may impede or prevent any potential takeover bid. Generally, our franchise agreements allow the manufacturers the right to terminate the agreements upon a change of control of our company and impose restrictions upon the transferability of any significant percentage of our stock to any one person or entity who may be unqualified, as defined by the manufacturer, to own one of its dealerships. The inability of a person or entity to qualify with one or more of our manufacturers may prevent or seriously impede a potential takeover bid. In addition, provisions of our lending arrangements create an event of default on a change in control. These agreements, corporate governance documents and laws may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control or preventing stockholders from realizing a premium on the sale of their shares if we were acquired.

The outcome of legal and administrative proceedings we are or may become involved in could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and profitability.

We are involved, and expect to continue to be involved, in numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including regulatory investigations and private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a potential class or for which a class has been certified, such as the following.

In September 2002, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office served a search warrant on one of our dealership subsidiaries located in Los Angeles County relating to alleged deceptive practices of the dealership’s finance and insurance department. In September 2005, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office filed felony criminal charges against six former employees of the dealership in connection with its investigation. The former employees who were indicted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office have not been employed by the dealership or our company for more than three years. In February 2006, our dealership subsidiary entered into civil settlement agreements with both the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and the California Department of Motor Vehicles to resolve their respective investigations of these matters.

20

Table of Contents

In December 2003, the North Carolina Attorney General’s office notified us that it had initiated an inquiry into the sales practices of our North Carolina dealerships following a negative media report on our company. In March 2006, we entered into an agreement with the North Carolina Attorney General that resolved this inquiry.

We may be involved in other regulatory investigations from time to time in the future, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted. We vigorously defend ourselves and assert available defenses in regulatory investigations, but an unfavorable resolution of one or more regulatory investigations could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows or prospects.

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and several of our dealership subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. One of these private civil actions has been filed in South Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of our South Carolina subsidiaries. We have been advised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys in this South Carolina private civil action intend to file private civil class actions against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries in other states. This group of plaintiffs’ attorneys has filed another one of these private civil class action lawsuits in state court in North Carolina seeking certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs. The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina state court action have since been consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration. Another one of these private civil actions has been filed in Tennessee state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and one of our Tennessee subsidiaries. Additionally, a private civil action has also been filed against one of our dealerships in Los Angeles County stating allegations similar to those underlying the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s investigation described above. The plaintiffs in this private civil action purport to represent a class of customers as potential plaintiffs, although no motion for class certification has been filed.

The outcomes of the civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of customers, as well as other pending and future legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects.

In addition, several of our Texas dealership subsidiaries have been named in three class action lawsuits brought against the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (“TADA”) and new vehicle dealerships in Texas that are members of the TADA. Approximately 630 Texas dealerships are named as defendants in two of the actions, and approximately 700 Texas dealerships are named as defendants in the other action. The three actions allege that since January 1994, Texas automobile dealerships have deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and other laws. In April 2002, in two actions the Texas state court certified two classes of consumers on whose behalf the actions would proceed. The Texas Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court’s order of class certification in the state actions, and the Texas Supreme Court issued an order for the second time in September 2004 stating that it would not hear the merits of the defendant’s appeal on class certification. The federal trial court conditionally certified a class of consumers in the federal antitrust case, but on appeal by the defendant dealerships, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the certification of the plaintiff class in October 2004 and remanded the case back to the federal trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling by the Fifth Circuit.

In June 2005, our Texas dealerships and several other dealership defendants entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in both the state and the federal cases that would settle each of the cases on behalf

21

Table of Contents

of our Texas dealerships. The settlements are contingent upon court approval, and the state court has not yet granted final approval of the settlements. If the TADA matters are not settled, our Texas dealership subsidiaries would then vigorously defend themselves and assert available defenses. In addition, we may have rights of indemnification with respect to certain aspects of the TADA matters. However, an adverse resolution of the TADA matters could result in the payment of significant costs and damages and negatively impact our Texas dealerships’ ability to itemize and pass through to the customer the cost of the vehicle inventory tax in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Our company is also a defendant in the matter of Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc., a private civil action filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the plaintiffs allege that we and our Florida dealerships sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of any customer of any of our Florida dealerships who purchased the antitheft protection product since December 30, 1998. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for certification of the requested class of customers, but the court has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this lawsuit. We have subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court’s class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this lawsuit, including the aforementioned appeal of the trial court’s class certification order, and to assert available defenses. However, an adverse resolution of this lawsuit could result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Our business may be adversely affected by claims alleging violations of laws and regulations in our advertising, sales and finance and insurance activities.

Our business is highly regulated. In the past several years, private plaintiffs and state attorney generals have increased their scrutiny of advertising, sales, and finance and insurance activities in the sale and leasing of motor vehicles. The conduct of our business is subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent trade practices (including advertising, marketing, sales, insurance, repair and promotion practices), truth-in-lending, consumer leasing, fair credit practices, equal credit opportunity, privacy, insurance, motor vehicle finance, installment finance, closed-end credit, usury and other installment sales. Claims arising out of actual or alleged violations of law may be asserted against us or any of our dealers by individuals, either individually or through class actions, or by governmental entities in civil or criminal investigations and proceedings. Such actions may expose us to substantial monetary damages and legal defense costs, injunctive relief and criminal and civil fines and penalties, including suspension or revocation of our licenses and franchises to conduct dealership operations.

Our business may be adversely affected by unfavorable conditions in our local markets, even if those conditions are not prominent nationally.

Our performance is subject to local economic, competitive and other conditions prevailing in geographic areas where we operate. For example, our current results of operations depend substantially on general economic conditions and consumer spending habits in our Northern California and Houston markets. Revenues in our Northern California and Houston markets represented approximately 15.9% and 14.9%, respectively, of our total revenues for 2005. We may not be able to expand geographically and any geographic expansion may not adequately insulate us from the adverse effects of local or regional economic conditions.

The loss of key personnel and limited management and personnel resources could adversely affect our operations and growth.

Our success depends to a significant degree upon the continued contributions of our management team, particularly our senior management, and service and sales personnel. Additionally, manufacturer franchise agreements may require the prior approval of the applicable manufacturer before any change is made in franchise

22

Table of Contents

general managers. We do not have employment agreements with certain members of our senior management team, our dealership managers and other key dealership personnel. Consequently, the loss of the services of one or more of these key employees could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

In addition, as we expand we may need to hire additional managers. The market for qualified employees in the industry and in the regions in which we operate, particularly for general managers and sales and service personnel, is highly competitive and may subject us to increased labor costs during periods of low unemployment. The loss of the services of key employees or the inability to attract additional qualified managers could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. In addition, the lack of qualified management or employees employed by potential acquisition candidates may limit our ability to consummate future acquisitions.

Governmental regulation and environmental regulation compliance costs may adversely affect our profitability.

We are subject to a wide range of federal, state and local laws and regulations, such as local licensing requirements, retail financing and consumer protection laws and regulations, and wage-hour, anti-discrimination and other employment practices laws and regulations. Our facilities and operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental protection and human health and safety, including those governing wastewater discharges, air emissions, the operation and removal of underground and aboveground storage tanks, the use, storage, treatment, transportation, release, recycling and disposal of solid and hazardous materials and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated property or water. The violation of these laws and regulations can result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties against us or in a cease and desist order against our operations that are not in compliance. Our future acquisitions may also be subject to regulation, including antitrust reviews. We believe that we comply in all material respects with all laws and regulations applicable to our business, but future regulations may be more stringent and require us to incur significant additional compliance costs.

Our past and present business operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations. We may be required by these laws to pay the full amount of the costs of investigation and/or remediation of contaminated properties, even if we are not at fault for disposal of the materials or if such disposal was legal at the time. Like many of our competitors, we have incurred, and will continue to incur, capital and operating expenditures and other costs in complying with these laws and regulations. In addition, soil and groundwater contamination exists at certain of our properties. We cannot assure you that our other properties have not been or will not become similarly contaminated. In addition, we could become subject to potentially material new or unforeseen environmental costs or liabilities because of our acquisitions.

Potential conflicts of interest between us and our officers or directors could adversely affect our future performance.

O. Bruton Smith serves as the chairman and chief executive officer of Speedway Motorsports. Accordingly, we compete with Speedway Motorsports for the management time of Mr. Smith.

We have in the past and will likely in the future enter into transactions with Mr. Smith, entities controlled by Mr. Smith or our other affiliates. We believe that all of our existing arrangements with affiliates are as favorable to us as if the arrangements were negotiated between unaffiliated parties, although the majority of these transactions have neither been verified by third parties in that regard nor are likely to be so verified in the future. Potential conflicts of interest could arise in the future between us and our officers or directors in the enforcement, amendment or termination of arrangements existing between them.

An impairment of our goodwill could have a material adverse impact on our earnings.

Pursuant to applicable accounting pronouncements, we test goodwill for impairment annually or more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a

23

Table of Contents

reporting unit below its carrying amount. We describe the process for testing goodwill more thoroughly in this report in Item 7 under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Use of Estimates and Critical Accounting Policies.” If we determine that the amount of our goodwill is impaired at any point in time, we will be required to reduce goodwill on our balance sheet. A reduction in the amount of goodwill on our balance sheet will require us to record a non-cash impairment charge against our earnings for the period in which the impairment of goodwill occurred. This would have a material adverse impact on our earnings for that period.

Poor performance in one or more of our geographic divisions or a realignment of the dealerships which comprise each division could constitute events or changes in circumstances for purposes of determining whether the fair value of our goodwill has been reduced below the carrying amount. We would therefore be required to test our goodwill for impairment. As of December 31, 2005, our balance sheet reflected a carrying amount of approximately $1,127.7 million in goodwill (including goodwill classified as assets held for sale), which was allocated between three geographic reporting units. If the goodwill in any of our reporting units is impaired, we will record a significant non-cash impairment charge that would likely have a material adverse effect on our earnings for the period in which the impairment of goodwill occurred.

None.

Our principal executive offices are located at 6415 Idlewild Road, Suite 109, Charlotte, North Carolina 28212, and our telephone number is (704) 566-2400. We lease these offices from a related party. See Note 1 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Our dealerships are generally located along major U.S. or interstate highways. One of the principal factors we consider in evaluating an acquisition candidate is its location. We prefer to acquire dealerships located along major thoroughfares, which can be easily visited by prospective customers.

We lease the majority of the properties utilized by our dealership operations from affiliates of Capital Automotive REIT (“CARS”) and other individuals and entities. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current needs.

Under the terms of our franchise agreements, each of our dealerships must maintain an appropriate appearance and design of its dealership facility and is restricted in its ability to relocate.

Several of our Texas dealership subsidiaries have been named in three class action lawsuits brought against the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (“TADA”) and new vehicle dealerships in Texas that are members of the TADA. Approximately 630 Texas dealerships are named as defendants in two of the actions, and approximately 700 dealerships are named as defendants in the other action. The three actions allege that since January 1994, Texas automobile dealerships have deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and other laws. In April 2002, in two actions, the Texas state court certified two classes of consumers on whose behalf the actions would proceed. The Texas Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court’s order of class certification in the state actions, and the Texas Supreme Court issued an order for the second time in September 2004 stating that it would not hear the merits of the defendant’s appeal on class certification. The federal trial court conditionally certified a class of consumers in the federal antitrust case, but on appeal by the defendant dealerships, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the certification of the plaintiff class in October 2004 and remanded the case back to the federal trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling by the Fifth Circuit.

24

Table of Contents

In June 2005, our Texas dealerships and several other dealership defendants entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in both the state and the federal cases that would settle each of the cases on behalf of our Texas dealerships. The settlements are contingent upon court approval, and the State court has not yet granted final approval of the settlements. The estimated expense of the proposed settlement is not a material amount to Sonic as a whole, and it includes our Texas dealerships issuing coupons for discounts off future vehicle purchases, refunding cash in certain circumstances, and paying attorneys’ fees and certain costs. Under the terms of the settlements, our Texas dealerships would continue to itemize and pass through to the customer the cost of the inventory tax. If the TADA matters are not settled, our Texas dealership subsidiaries would then vigorously defend themselves and assert available defenses. In addition, we may have rights of indemnification with respect to certain aspects of the TADA matters. However, an adverse resolution of the TADA matters could result in the payment of significant costs and damages and negatively impact our Texas dealerships’ ability to itemize and pass through to the customer the cost of the vehicle inventory tax in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

We are also a defendant in the matter of Galura, et al. v. Sonic Automotive, Inc., a private civil action filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the plaintiffs allege that we and our Florida dealerships sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of any customer of any of our Florida dealerships who purchased the antitheft protection product since December 30, 1998. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for certification of the requested class of customers, but the court has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this lawsuit. We subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court’s class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals. We intend to continue vigorous defense of this lawsuit, including the appeal of the trial court’s class certification order, and to assert available defenses. However, an adverse resolution of this lawsuit could result in the payment of significant costs and damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

We are involved, and expect to continue to be involved, in numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including regulatory investigations and private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a potential class or for which a class has been certified. Although we vigorously defend ourselves in all legal and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future proceedings arising out of the conduct of our business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects.

Not applicable.

PART II

Our Class A common stock is currently traded on the NYSE under the symbol “SAH.” Our Class B Common Stock is not traded on a public market.

As of March 1, 2006, there were 30,054,862 shares of Sonic’s Class A common stock and 12,029,375 shares of our Class B common stock outstanding. As of March 1, 2006, there were 96 record holders of the Class A common stock and three record holders of the Class B common stock. As of March 1, 2006, the closing stock price for the Class A common stock was $26.64.

25

Table of Contents

Our Board of Directors approved four quarterly cash dividends totaling $0.48 per share during 2005. During 2004, our Board of Directors approved four quarterly dividends totaling $0.44 per share. Our Board of Directors has also approved a dividend of $0.12 per share for shareholders of record on March 15, 2006 which will be paid on April 15, 2006. See Note 6 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of restrictions on the payment of dividends.

The following table sets forth the high and low closing sales prices for Sonic’s Class A common stock for each calendar quarter during the periods indicated as reported by the NYSE Composite Tape and the dividends declared during such periods.

During 2005, all sales of our equity securities were registered under the Securities Act except for the sale of warrants to purchase our Class A Common Stock in connection with the issuance of the 2005 Convertibles. See Notes 1 and 6 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of these warrants and the 2005 Convertibles. Proceeds from the sale of the warrants were used to offset the cost of a hedge on the 2005 Convertibles.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table sets forth information about the shares of Class A Common Stock we repurchased during the quarter ended December 31, 2005.

26

Table of Contents

This selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

We have accounted for all of our dealership acquisitions using the purchase method of accounting and, as a result, we do not include in our consolidated financial statements the results of operations of these dealerships prior to the date we acquired them. Our selected consolidated financial data reflect the results of operations and financial positions of each of our dealerships acquired prior to December 31, 2005. As a result of the effects of our acquisitions and other potential factors in the future, the historical consolidated financial information described in selected consolidated financial data is not necessarily indicative of the results of our operations and financial position in the future or the results of operations and financial position that would have resulted had such acquisitions occurred at the beginning of the periods presented in the selected consolidated financial data.

27

Table of Contents

The following discussion and analysis of the results of operations and financial condition should be read in conjunction with the Sonic Automotive, Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report on Form 10-K. The financial and statistical data contained in the following discussion for all periods presented reflects our December 31, 2005 classification of franchises between continuing and discontinued operations in accordance with SFAS No. 144 and the restatement of certain cash flows related to notes payable—floor plan (see Note 1 to the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements).

Overview

We are one of the largest automotive retailers in the United States. As of March 1, 2006 we operated 175 dealership franchises, representing 37 different brands of cars and light trucks, at 152 locations and 38 collision repair centers in 15 states. Our dealerships provide comprehensive services including sales of both new and used cars and light trucks, sales of replacement parts, performance of vehicle maintenance, manufacturer warranty repairs, paint and collision repair services, and arrangement of extended service contracts, financing, insurance and other aftermarket products for our customers. In addition, although vehicle sales are cyclical and are affected by many factors, including general economic conditions, consumer confidence, levels of discretionary personal income, interest rates and available credit, our parts, service and collision repair services are not closely tied to vehicle sales and are not as dependent upon near-term sales volume. As a result, we believe the diversity of these products and services reduces the risk of periodic economic downturns.

The automobile industry’s total amount of new vehicles sold increased by 0.5% to 17.0 million vehicles in 2005 from 16.9 million vehicles in 2004. This was the second consecutive annual increase in industry sales. Many factors such as brand and geographic concentrations have caused our past results to differ from the industry’s total amount of new vehicles sold. In 2005, our import stores outperformed the industry’s 4.7% import unit sales growth and our domestic stores outperformed the industry’s domestic sales contraction of 2.5%.

We sell similar products and services that exhibit similar economic characteristics, use similar processes in selling our products and services and sell our products and services to similar classes of customers. As a result of this and the way we manage our business, we have aggregated our operating segments into a single segment for purposes of reporting financial condition and results of operations.

In the ordinary course of business we evaluate our dealership franchises for possible disposition based on various performance criteria. During the year ended December 31, 2005, we sold 20 franchises, terminated two franchises, and had approved, but not completed, the disposition of 16 additional franchises. These franchises have been identified as held for sale because of unprofitable operations or other strategic considerations. We believe the disposition of these franchises will allow us to focus our management attention on those remaining stores with the highest potential return on investment.

Use of Estimates and Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported

28

Table of Contents

amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Critical accounting policies are those that are both most important to the portrayal of our financial position and results of operations and require the most subjective and complex judgments. The following is a discussion of what we believe are our critical accounting policies and estimates. See Note 1 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for additional discussion regarding our accounting policies.

Finance, Insurance and Service Contracts—We arrange financing for customers through various financial institutions and receive a commission from the lender either in a flat fee amount or in an amount equal to the difference between the actual interest rates charged to customers and the predetermined base rates set by the financing institution. We also receive commissions from the sale of various insurance contracts and non-recourse third party extended service contracts to customers. Under these contracts, the applicable manufacturer or third party warranty company is directly liable for all warranties provided within the contract.

In the event a customer terminates a financing, insurance or extended service contract prior to the original termination date, we may be required to return a portion of the commission revenue originally recorded to the third party provider (“chargebacks”). The commission revenue for the sale of these products and services is recorded net of estimated chargebacks at the time of sale. Our estimate of future chargebacks is established based on our historical chargeback rates, termination provisions of the applicable contracts and industry data. While chargeback rates vary depending on the type of contract sold, a 100 basis point change in the estimated chargeback rates used in determining our estimates of future chargebacks would have changed our estimated reserve for chargebacks at December 31, 2005 by $2.1 million. Our estimate of chargebacks ($12.9 million as of December 31, 2005) is influenced by early contract termination events such as vehicle repossessions, refinancings and early pay-off. If these factors change, the resulting impact is a change in our estimate for chargebacks.

Goodwill—Goodwill is tested for impairment at least annually, or more frequently when events or circumstances indicate that impairment might have occurred. Based on criteria established by the applicable accounting pronouncements, we allocate the carrying value of goodwill and test it for impairment based on our three geographic divisions. The $1,127.7 million of goodwill on our balance sheet, including approximately $5.2 million classified in assets held for sale, at December 31, 2005 was allocated to the following geographic divisions (dollars in millions):

In evaluating goodwill for impairment, we compare the carrying value of each division to the fair value of the underlying dealerships in each division. This represents the first step of the impairment test. If the fair value of a division is less than the carrying value of that division, we are then required to proceed to the second step of the impairment test. The second step involves allocating the calculated fair value to all of the assets of the respective division as if the calculated fair value was the purchase price of the business combination. This allocation would include assigning value to any previously unrecognized identifiable assets (including franchise assets) which means the remaining fair value that would be allocated to goodwill would be significantly reduced. See discussion regarding franchise agreements acquired prior to July 1, 2001 in Note 1 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. We would then compare the fair value of the goodwill resulting from this allocation process to the carrying value of the goodwill in the respective division with the difference representing the amount of impairment.

29

Table of Contents

We use several assumptions and various fair value approaches in estimating the fair value of each division. These assumptions and approaches include: an earnings multiple for private dealership valuations (as determined by the historical multiple paid for dealerships we have purchased) applied to actual earnings; an earnings multiple for public consolidators in our peer group applied to actual earnings; and a discounted cash flow utilizing estimated future earnings and our weighted average cost of capital. These approaches are blended to arrive at a fair value of each division.

At December 31, 2005 (the date of our latest impairment test), the fair value of each of our divisions exceeded the carrying value of that division (step one of the above described impairment test). As a result, we were not required to conduct the second step of the impairment test described above, and we recognized no impairment of the carrying value of our goodwill on our balance sheet at December 31, 2005.

However, if in future periods we determine that the fair value of one or more of our divisions is less than their carrying value, we believe that application of the second step of the impairment test would result in a substantial impairment charge to the goodwill allocated to such division(s) and the amount of such impairment charge would likely be materially adverse to our consolidated operating results and financial position.

Insurance Reserves—We have various self-insured and high deductible insurance programs which require us to make estimates in determining the ultimate liability we may incur for claims arising under these programs. We accrue for insurance reserves on a pro-rata basis throughout the year based on the expected year end liability. These estimates, judgments and assumptions are made quarterly by our management based on available information and take into consideration actuarial evaluations based on historical claims experience, claims processing procedures, medical cost trends and, in certain cases, a discount factor. If our management receives information which causes us to change our estimate of the year end liability, the amount of expense or expense reduction required to be recorded in any particular quarter could be material to our operating results, financial position and cash flows. We estimate the ultimate liability under these programs is between $23.9 million and $25.9 million. At December 31, 2005, we had $24.7 million reserved for such programs. We used an experience modification factor in estimating reserves for workers’ compensation claims of 0.67. A change of five basis points in this factor would have changed the reserve by $0.6 million. We used a discount rate of 4.0% to calculate the present value of our estimated workers’ compensation claims. A change of 100 basis points in the discount rate would have changed the workers’ compensation reserve by $0.4 million. A discount rate of 4.0% was used to calculate the present value of our general liability claim reserves. A change of 100 basis points in the discount rate would have changed the general liability reserve by $0.2 million.

Legal Proceedings—We are involved, and will continue to be involved, in numerous legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes and actions brought by governmental authorities. During 2005, we recorded an additional $0.8 million in legal reserves. As of December 31, 2005, we had $3.5 million in legal reserves included in other accrued liabilities. Currently, with the exception of the TADA and Galura litigation matters discussed in “Item 3: Legal Proceedings” herein, no legal proceedings are pending against or involve us that, in the opinion of management, could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations cash flows and prospects. However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

Classification of Franchises in Continuing and Discontinued Operations—We classify the results from operations of our continuing and discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of income based on the provisions of SFAS No. 144. Many of these provisions involve judgment in determining whether a franchise will be reported as continuing or discontinued operations. Such judgments include whether a franchise will be sold or terminated, the period required to complete the disposition and the likelihood of changes to a plan for sale. If in

30

Table of Contents

future periods we determine that a franchise should be either reclassified from continuing operations to discontinued operations or from discontinued operations to continuing operations, previously reported consolidated statements of income may be reclassified in order to reflect the current classification.

Income Taxes—As a matter of course, we are regularly audited by various taxing authorities and from time to time, these audits result in proposed assessments where the ultimate resolution may result in us owing additional taxes. We believe that our tax positions comply, in all material respects, with applicable tax law and that we have adequately provided for any reasonably foreseeable outcome related to these matters. Included in other accrued liabilities at December 31, 2005 is $3.1 million in reserves that we have provided for these matters.

We have $8.0 million in deferred tax assets related to state net operating loss carryforwards that will expire between 2006 and 2025. Management reviews these carryforward positions, the time remaining until expiration and other opportunities to utilize these carryforwards in making an assessment as to whether it is more likely than not that these carryforwards will be utilized. Based on our judgment, we have not recorded a valuation allowance because it is more likely than not that taxable income for these states will be sufficient to realize the benefits of the associated deferred tax assets. However, the results of future operations, regulatory framework of these taxing authorities and other related matters cannot be predicted with certainty. Therefore, actual utilization of the losses which created these deferred tax assets which differs from the assumptions used in the development of our judgment could result in a charge that would be materially adverse to our consolidated operating results, financial position and cash flows.

We accrue for income taxes on a pro-rata basis throughout the year based on the expected year end liability. These estimates, judgments and assumptions are made quarterly by our management based on available information and take into consideration estimated income taxes based on prior year income tax returns, changes in income tax law, our income tax strategies and other factors. If our management receives information which causes us to change our estimate of the year end liability, the amount of expense or expense reduction required to be recorded in any particular quarter could be material to our operating results, financial position and cash flows.

Cornerstone Acceptance Allowance for Credit Losses—As of December 31, 2005, we had outstanding notes receivable arising from operations of our wholly owned finance subsidiary, Cornerstone Acceptance Corporation (“Cornerstone”), of $48.5 million, net of an allowance for credit losses of $8.3 million. These notes receivable have average terms of approximately forty-two months and are secured by the related vehicles. Our assessment of allowance for credit losses considers historical loss ratios, the performance of the current portfolio with respect to past due accounts, and the average age of the accounts in the current portfolio. As of December 31, 2005, the average loss ratio for mature accounts was 20.3% and the average percentage of losses remaining to be incurred on the current portfolio as a result of the average age of the current portfolio was 64.9%. A change of 100 basis points in both of these percentages would have changed our estimated allowance for credit losses by $0.5 million at December 31, 2005. These notes receivable are recorded in other current assets and other assets on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Recent Accounting Pronouncement

In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment” which replaces SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”, supersedes APB 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” and is effective for us on January 1, 2006. SFAS No. 123R requires a public entity to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair value of the award. That cost will be recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide service in exchange for the award (usually the vesting period). Tax benefits associated with share-based payments will be recognized as an addition to paid-in capital. Cash retained as a result of these tax benefits will be presented in the statement of cash flows as financing cash inflows and operating cash outflows. On December 22, 2005, a committee of our Board of Directors approved the accelerated vesting of all outstanding options to purchase our Class A common stock with an exercise price of more than $22.55 per share. The purpose of the accelerated vesting of these stock options is to reduce the non-cash

31

Table of Contents

compensation expense we would have recorded in future periods pursuant to SFAS No. 123R. This accelerated vesting reduced future expense pursuant to SFAS No. 123R by approximately $2.1 million. We believe that, because the stock options being accelerated have exercise prices in excess of the market price of our Class A common stock on the day of acceleration, the stock options have limited economic value at this time. We estimate that the adoption of SFAS No. 123R will increase compensation expense by approximately $2.0 million, $1.5 million and $0.5 million in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively, as a result of expensing the fair value of unvested options as of the date of adoption over the remaining vesting period based on the fair value of the option at the grant date. This estimate does not include any expense related to stock options that may be granted subsequent to December 31, 2005.

Results of Operations

The following table summarizes the percentages of total revenue represented by certain items reflected in our Consolidated Statements of Income:

During the year ended December 31, 2005, we sold 20 franchises, terminated two franchises, and had approved, but not completed, the disposition of 16 additional franchises. The results of operations of these dealerships, including gains or losses on disposition, have been included in discontinued operations on the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Income for all periods presented. In addition to these dispositions, during the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, we disposed of seven and 18 franchises, respectively.

32

Table of Contents

Annual “same store” results of operations represent the aggregate of the same store results for each of the four quarters in that year. Same store results for each quarter include dealerships that were owned and operated for the entire quarter in both periods and were classified as continuing operations under SFAS No. 144 at December 31, 2005. Unless otherwise noted, our discussion of the Results of Operations from “New Vehicles” to “Gross Profit and Gross Margins” is on a same store basis.

New Vehicles

New vehicle revenues include the sale and lease of new vehicles, as well as the sale of fleet vehicles. New vehicle revenues are highly dependent on manufacturer incentives, which vary from cash-back incentives to low interest rate financing. New vehicle revenues are also dependent on manufacturers for adequate vehicle allocations to meet customer demands.

The automobile manufacturing industry is cyclical and historically has experienced periodic downturns characterized by oversupply and weak demand. As an automotive retailer, we seek to mitigate the effects of this cyclicality by maintaining a diverse mix of domestic and import branded dealerships. Our brand diversity allows us to offer a broad range of products at a wide range of prices from lower priced, or economy vehicles, to luxury vehicles. We believe that this diversity reduces the risk of changes in customer preferences, product supply shortages and aging products. For the year ended December 31, 2005, 79.4% of our total new vehicle revenue was generated by import and luxury dealerships compared to 76.7% for 2004. We expect this trend toward more import and domestic luxury dealerships to continue. We believe demographic and other trends favor import and luxury brands and expect our acquisition activity in the future to concentrate primarily, but not completely, on these brands.

We expect that industry-wide new vehicle sales will continue their overall long-term trend of growing modestly faster than population growth after considering the impact of normal business cycles. We also believe the trend toward ownership of more vehicles per household will continue.

Our same store new vehicle unit sales volume improved in 2005, as compared to 2004. This increase was driven entirely by our import dealerships, which experienced an increase of 6,826 units, or 7.4%, while our domestic dealerships experienced a slight decrease of 379 units, or 0.7%. Our top performing import brands for 2005 were Honda, BMW and Lexus, which posted increases of 3,512 units, or 13.0%, 997 units, or 7.4%, and 1,006 units, or 16.1%, respectively. These increases can be attributed to the introduction of new models, in addition to new body styling and design on existing models. In addition, management stability at our Honda dealerships contributed to the improvement in new vehicle sales volume. Our Volvo dealerships experienced the most significant decline in sales volume among our import stores, decreasing by 443 units, or 8.6%, as compared to 2004. The results at our Volvo dealerships are consistent with overall market share declines experienced by Volvo in the industry as a whole. The majority of the domestic dealership declines were from our Cadillac dealerships (down 499 units, or 4.4%), which was mainly the result of declining SUV sales. Our GM (excluding Cadillac) and Ford dealerships experienced considerable declines in new retail unit volume, but strong fleet sales

33

Table of Contents

led to slight overall improvements in total new unit sales volume. Our domestic dealerships continued to experience market share declines and continued to show a decline in sales volume during the current year. We believe that this trend is consistent with the industry as a whole.

In total, our sales price per unit increased by $168, or 0.6%, during 2005. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that a larger percentage of our sales are being generated by higher priced luxury vehicles. Many of our import dealerships experienced price per unit increases, most notably being Honda, BMW and Lexus (up 5.8%, 3.4% and 3.0%, respectively). Our GM and Cadillac dealerships experienced the most significant decreases in sales price per unit (down 4.9% and 4.1%, respectively). The decreases at these dealerships can be attributed to both the various pricing strategies put in place by GM during 2005 and a shift from truck and SUV sales to car sales during the year.

During 2004, both our import and domestic dealerships experienced significant decreases in total same store new vehicle unit sales, as compared to 2003. Our import dealerships experienced decreases of 4,471 units, or 5.1%, during this time period. This is compared to an industry increase in unit sales at import dealerships generally of 5.6%. Despite the overall sales volume decrease at our import dealerships, our BMW stores experienced a unit volume increase of 7.0%. This increase can be primarily attributed to the introduction of new models and new body styles for existing models. Our domestic dealerships experienced unit sales declines of 2,384 units, or 4.3%, during 2004. This was compared to an industry decrease in unit sales at domestic dealerships of 1.2%. Our Ford dealerships were responsible for a majority of the domestic decline due primarily to Ford’s continued loss of market share to import brands. Our Cadillac and Chrysler dealerships were responsible for the remainder of our domestic decline, experiencing decreases of 52 units, or 0.5%, and 509 units, or 11.0%, respectively. All of our dealerships except Honda, Toyota and Volvo experienced sales price per unit increases during 2004. Our Honda and Toyota dealerships experienced only slight decreases, while our Volvo stores posted a considerable price per unit decrease of $1,469, or 4.2%, when compared to 2003. Our BMW, Nissan and Hyundai dealerships experienced the most significant price increases due to a higher volume of truck and SUV sales.

Used Vehicles

Used vehicle revenues are directly affected by the level of manufacturer incentives on new vehicles, the number and quality of trade-ins and lease turn-ins and the availability of consumer credit. In addition, various manufacturers provide franchised dealers the opportunity to “certify” pre-owned vehicles based on criteria established by the manufacturer. This certification process extends the standard manufacturer warranty. We believe the used vehicle business will become more clearly segmented and CPO vehicles and similar products will continue to grow as a larger share of dealership used vehicle sales. On a continuing operations basis, our sales of CPO vehicles increased to 25,185 units in 2005 (36.8% of total units) from 21,984 units in 2004 (33.9% of total units), an increase of 14.6%. The overall used vehicle industry experienced improvements, as the Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index increased by 6.7% from December 2004 to December 2005.

34

Table of Contents

In 2005, our import dealerships contributed to the overall improvement in used units by posting increases of 2,706 units, or 7.4%, while our domestic dealerships declined by 1,154 units, or 4.1%. Of our import stores, Honda and BMW posted the most significant increases in used unit volume, improving by 1,059 units, or 10.7%, and 609 units, or 12.5%. Cadillac was the largest contributor to the domestic decline in unit volume, decreasing by 945 units, or 13.4%, as compared to 2004.

Our unit price increase can be mainly attributed to an increase in CPO vehicles sold as a percentage of total used units sold (increasing from 33.9% in 2004 to 36.8% in 2005).

During 2004, we experienced challenges in the used vehicle market due to manufacturer incentives on new vehicles. The decreases in used units sold occurred primarily in our domestic dealerships, which decreased by 3,685 units, or 11.7%, as compared to 2003. Our Florida, Ohio, Dallas and Oklahoma markets combined represented 60.6% of the total unit decline in 2004. Only one market, Alabama/Tennessee, which has a high concentration of import and/or luxury brands, reported an improvement in unit volume, increasing by 115 units, or 1.9%.

Wholesale Vehicles

Wholesale vehicle revenues are highly correlated with new and used vehicle retail sales and the associated trade-in volume. Wholesale revenues are also significantly affected by our corporate inventory management policies, which are designed to optimize our total used vehicle inventory.