By on October 17, 2008

Although the U.S. pickup truck market is suddenly a lot smaller, it’s not small. And while Ford is scrambling to make something, anything profitable in the car segment, the F-150 is still a large part of the reason why the company remains out of bankruptcy court. In fact, in September, the Ford F-150 outsold all Ford cars combined. That’s a lot of pressure for a truck to carry on its frame, even with over 3000 lbs of payload capacity. And so, the 2009 F-150 is here, hoping to prove the value of the old British adage, if you’re in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. Or at least shore-up the floor so you don’t sink into an abyss. Does the new F-150 have what it takes to at least keep Ford in the game?

Not if you buy your pickup according to horsepower ratings. Or torque. But, thankfully for Ford, in a strange sort of way, the power-obsessed vanity truck buyer has left the building site. Because the new F-150 leads the pack in functionality. It’s not just the F-150 capabilities, but how nonchalantly the F-150 performs them. In this, the new F-150’s leagues ahead of the Dodge Ram, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tundra.

The F-150’s bed is a perfect case in point. While it’s still too high (as in all “full-size” trucks are too big), the bed has available kick down steps on both sides. It’s not a high tech solution, but when it comes to a work truck, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. IN keeping with its “tough luck” I mean “truck” meme, Ford over-engineered the steps to take 500 lbs of weight. As a hand-me-down from the nearly obsolete F250 Super Duty, the tailgate has a fold down rear-step and vertical hand grip. Good thinking.

Another example: the factory-installed cargo rails in the sides of the bed are again laughably well over-engineered, with 600 lbs of capacity each. They’re also a breeze to configure. Once in place, you can snap-in all manner of accessories to divide the cargo area.

I towed 7000 lbs. trailers back-to-back in the Ford F-150 and top of the line Toyota Tundra, Dodge Ram and Chevy Silverado. For the most part, it was a beating. The F-150 has an integrated trailer brake controller and Trailer Sway Control– which the computer somehow manages to coordinate with Roll Stability Control and the other alphabet soup equipment. I tow six times a year and unlike the editor of Trailer Boat magazine, who was feeling the temperature of the trailer wheels after driving, I’m not even close to an expert. But that’s the key.

I’m a towing layman. And between comparably equipped trucks, the Ford was infinitely easier to drive than the Dodge and Tundra, both of which had transmission hangups that made towing a chore and engine braking nearly impossible. The Silverado 6.0 performed very well, if not as coolly as the F150, the outcome of overactive brakes and a jumpy transmission.

The F-150’s easy/breezy/beautiful [cover girl] nature also comes through in on road driving, handling and hauling. It has actual steering feedback– where its competitors’ tiller feel is either as wooden as Pinocchio’s half-brother (Silverado) or as nonexistent as a TTAC review without a simile (Tundra). Again, the genius here is that a non-truck person would feel comfortable driving it.

The interior doesn’t get the same rave review. The good news is that the new seats are exceptionally comfortable. Now the bad news about the interior: everything else. While all the features are there (including Microsoft Sync), liberally applied silver colored plastic on the dash looks and feels cheap. The plastic on top of the dash is craptastic, too. And the unnecessary chrome surrounding the gauges on several trim levels is gaudy and imperfect. That said, the cheaper trim level trucks, like the crank-window XL and slightly better equipped STX, are clad in a sea of charcoal grey plastic that looks the part of “truck you’re going to beat the stuffing out of.”

Ford’s gambling (not gambolling) that the remaining truck buyers in the next few years will buy because they want some practical. That’s why Ford focused on cargo bed, towing, steering, and seats rather than maxing-out the performance. Either that or it is a very happy coincidence indeed. Whether or not this kindler, gentler but steadfast and true truck approach will actually pay off is hard to say. They might score some “image” buyers because the F-150 has the image of a work truck– because it actually is one.

Ford says they’ve seen people trading down from Super Dutys to the F-150 because it’s so capable. I’ll buy that for a dollar. But what about everybody else, for whom the F-150 is just too big and thirsty? Class-leading fuel economy of 15/21 isn’t knocking anyone out. Yeah, the F-150 is fantastic. Why couldn’t we have had the old pretty good one and a brand new small truck? If Ford wants to stay on top of the truck pile, that’s going to have to be the future.

[The writer attended an overnight press junket, for which Ford paid all costs for transportation, hotel, provided vehicles, insurance, gas, and food.]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


46 Comments on “Review: 2009 Ford F-150...”

  • avatar

    I’m not going to clutter up this space with grousing about cab height, box height, interior plastics, arm-chair comparos, or anything else.

    All I’m going to say is, excellent review Justin.

  • avatar

    When the 2004 came out, the interior was a great leap forward compared to other trucks. But others have since caught up and even jumped ahead.

    TrueDelta hopes to have a quick result for the 2009 F-150, but this will depend on how quickly owners sign up and participate.

  • avatar

    Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I will proceed to commenting on the article proper:

    Not if you buy your pickup according to horsepower ratings. Or torque. But, thankfully for Ford, in a strange sort of way, the power-obsessed vanity truck buyer has left the building site. Because the new F-150 leads the pack in functionality. It’s not just the F-150 capabilities, but how nonchalantly the F-150 performs them. In this, the new F-150’s leagues ahead of the Dodge Ram, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tundra.

    Ford has always been a laggard in the HP wars, but they will get no buff-book style criticism from this quarter. Ford’s top-end 5.4 Triton in particular makes up for it with quite low-rpm torque, which is what really matters anyway.

    I’m a towing layman. And between comparably equipped trucks, the Ford was infinitely easier to drive than the Dodge and Tundra, both of which had transmission hangups that made towing a chore and engine braking nearly impossible. The Silverado 6.0 performed very well, if not as coolly as the F150, the outcome of overactive brakes and a jumpy transmission.

    You’re on to something, Justin. As more and more baby boomers retire, many are looking into RV’ing, and not all will be behind the wheel of a Winnebago. For them, many of whom have never owned a truck in their entire lifetimes, ease of use will be a big winner.

    As for the 6.0L, I’ve noticed this attribute as well. The engine has all kinds of torque and HP, but the tranny, while stout, misuses the torque curves. Perhaps a 6spd manual would allay these problems, because engine-wise I can find little fault with GM’s big small-block.

  • avatar

    I have to say that’s a damn nice-looking truck. Criticize if you will, but if I had to have only one vehicle for the next 10 years, it’d probably be a Supercab F-150.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz


    The 5.4 liter is indeed very good. Excellent even.

    But there’s an alternative at least in the 4.6 liter 3-valve, which Ford told me was new for this year. It has 292 hp and 320 lb ft of torque, and was more than enough to power the F-150.

  • avatar

    The 5.4 liter is indeed very good. Excellent even.

    But there’s an alternative at least in the 4.6 liter 3-valve, which Ford told me was new for this year. It has 292 hp and 320 lb ft of torque, and was more than enough to power the F-150.

    The old 2v 4.6 committed the cardinal sin of being a hp and torque laggard, at least as they were applied in trucks. In Crown Vics they’re not bad but are moving about 1000 lbs less machine.

    I look forward to driving the 3v 4.6, because I’ve driven the 4.2 V6 as well (both empty) and they drove similarly. Of course, now that point is moot as the V6 is gone for ’09.

  • avatar

    Good review Justin.

    For once the focus groups paid off – largely because people who use pickups for WORK can actually make up their mind on what is useful, what is not, and what they want. The rest of the car/CUV/SUV/Poseur Pickup drivers market is as scatterbrained as a broker on Wall St.

    Back in ’04, the Ford had a very clear edge in driving dynamics attributes – which made it a very simple, confident truck to drive out of the box (even if short on power). The competition has improved, but if Ford maintains that edge, it will bode well.

    While major gains in power may be absent, commendable is the significant jump in fuel economy as the old model was thirsty.

    I look forward to getting behind the wheel to witness what’s new (as I’d logged countless hours flogging the old P221 ’round Dearborn’s [now remodeled] development track)… and see where the competition is at today.

    Good for Ford.

  • avatar

    The interior looks godawful busy, kind of like the styling cues on the outside. Certainly not the best looking truck inside and out on the market right now.

  • avatar

    When is the Ecoboost coming?

  • avatar

    Is this the Triton V10 gone? So, for the F250 and up, if you are looking for more grunt, you are looking at a diesel? Seems like a good idea, but just wondering…

    Strange, but I find that blue-green shade of instrument lighting always makes interiors look dated to me. Same colour as my dads 68 Chev.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz


    The V10 is still available on the F250 Super Duty.

  • avatar

    My andectodal experience from running a fleet of 11 expediter cargo vans is that the 5.4L with the heavy duty trans is a half-million-mile powertrain. I have no doubt that the new F-150 will be just as durable.

    I originally started the business with all GMC cargo vans. I’ve been replacing them with Fords since annual repair and maintenance costs averaged three times higher for the GMC vehicles than the Fords. I know they aren’t pickups, but they have similar powertrains, fuel systems, suspensions, etc.

  • avatar

    Good to see them finally make the V8 standard.

    When you have a 3000lb payload and 11,000 towing, why would you really need the Super Duty F250?

    Instead of messing about with the XXL Super Duty, they should have offered up a ‘standard size’ F-100, capapble of hauling the mythical 4×8 sheet of plywood, but weighing in at 3600lbs. Make it low enought that you don’t need a spiral (or folding) staircase to get into the bed.

    I think commercial buyers will (continue to) be attracted to the Ford. Dodge, which went for the poseur buyer with new coil springs and six pack compartments in the floor, seems to have put its chips on the wrong number.

  • avatar

    to me, the biggest downfall is that pathetic motor. Although with 390lb-ft of torque and a numerically high final drive ratio, I imagine towing isn’t going to be a problem. But there is some merit to the fact that a Tundra is mildly alarming when you apply right foot to carpet.

  • avatar

    God…inside and out this thing is hideous. And what is with the ricer taillights?

  • avatar
    Dr Lemming

    People are trading down from the Super Duty because Ford pushed the F-150 too closely into that market niche. I suppose the greater standardization of parts between the two saves Ford money, but doesn’t it also 1) reduce Super Duty sales and 2) go in the opposite direction of a mpg-conscious market?

    This may be a good truck in the same way that the 1958 Lincoln was arguably superior to a Cadillac of that year: It’s the answer to a question that fewer and fewer people are asking.

  • avatar

    Another bonus: The incentives Ford is offering on pickups right now are mind blowing. I’ve several relatives who’ve already bought new farm trucks now because the prices are so cheap.

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    @confused 1096:

    It’s true. You can get stonking deals on the 2008 models. Probably will be a few months till the 2009 models are getting the heavy rebates.

  • avatar

    The 3030# payload rating is only for a long bed regular cab F150 with 5.4L V8 and payload package
    Typical crew/super cab payloads are under 2000#
    A Super Duty starts at 2280 and goes to 6120
    KingElvis- Isn’t that what the Dakota is all about? A “right” sized truck?

  • avatar

    Justin- did the gas pedal seem oddly placed? I sat in a 2008 in a dealer and I thought it was too far over to the left. I was wondering if I was imagining things or maybe they fixed it or something else.
    How was the ride in the Dodge?

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz


    I drove the F-150 for two days, pretty much nonstop, and never noticed a pedal issue.

    One small thing to keep in mind is that the F-150 has power adjustable pedals (welcome when you’re short like me at 5’7″ and the steering wheel doesn’t telescope). That may have been a factor.

    The ride quality in the Dodge was good with nothing out in the bed or towing. The coil springs certainly are comfortable for cruising. I really don’t think they cope well with hauling/towing, though.

  • avatar

    Another example: the factory-installed (a class exclusive)cargo rails in the sides of the bed are again laughably well over-engineered

    A bit of a nit pick, but this is hardly class exclusive. The Nissan Titan introduced this concept when it came out in late 2003. For that matter, everyone else has since partially copied this great idea, but so far, no one else has mounted them to the floor of the bed and only one or two of the others have one across the back of the cab (can’t recall which though, sorry!) like Nissan has with the Titan. Did you possibly mean class-leading weight capacity of the rails? Otherwise, great review for a great truck, wish my Titan had some of the F-150’s features (except the engine/tranny, I’m quite happy with my Titan’s ability to smoke Tundras;)

  • avatar

    Please elaborate about the junket. Economy, biz, or first class flight; 3- 4- or 5-star hotel; what was the food quality level? Costco platters or catered?

    That’s what we plebians want to know!

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz


    Please elaborate about the junket.

    In the interests of fair disclosure…

    Flight was economy class on Northwest. Hotel was one night at the 4-star “Royal Park Hotel” in Rochester, Michigan.

    Food was all catered. Pretty standard wedding/sweet 16/bar mitzvah catering fare. Dinner Tuesday and breakfast on Wednesday were both standard hotel buffet. Lunch both days was catered at Ford facilities. Sandwiches, some hot items. Good but nothing terribly fancy. This is normal for most junkets for mainstream cars.

    What else? They provided transportation to and from the airport in one of those tourist buses, along with the rest of the journalists.

  • avatar

    The thing that makes Ford trucks great, IMHO, is that they are overengineered. With shrinking profit margins those days could be numbered but when this was being designed it was in full effect. Ford’s durability testing is second to none. I would love to see what would happen to Toyota’s flimsy C channel frame on that course. There is no question a Ford truck can take any abuse that could be thrown at it.

    This truck is great because it has that and a great deal of civility. I think the driving dynamics are awesome compared to F-150’s of old and my expectations for a truck, although I have never driven the competition.

    My major gripe is the interior styling. They use so many different colors, textures, and shapes it just looks bizarre. Also, I agree that the silver, rock hard plastic on the dash is ugly and looks and feels cheap.

    When the dust settles, the truck market will still be huge. I think this truck will keep them on top and keep the company on life support.

  • avatar

    Thank you, Mr. B.

  • avatar
    Usta Bee

    Here’s my take on the hard plastic they’re putting on dashboards these days:

    They really don’t need soft vinyl up there anymore because all cars nowadays have airbags. The only thing soft vinyl was good for in pre-airbag days was for getting your dental impression off of it after you smashed the top of your head into the windshield, and your face into the dash.

    Besides hard plastic is better for the auto manufacturers as far as overall cost goes. If the airbags fail to deploy the manufacturer is better off with you killing yourself on the hard plastic dashboard than they would be if you survived and sued the company.

  • avatar

    Shouldn’t work trucks have hard plastics? Soft stuff is going to get ripped up or dirty. Hard plastics are resilient and easy to clean.

  • avatar

    Usta Bee

    Or you could, y’know, wear your seatbelt.

    Re: the hard plastics, though, I don’t see it as a bad thing, as long as they’re good bad plastics. Old Toyotas have that plastic that feels like shit, but you couldn’t break it with a sledgehammer. That’s the kind of stuff a truck needs. Most of the cheap plastics I’ve seen in newer cars don’t really feel up to the same standard.

  • avatar

    I find this ironic. The 2004 was arguably the first truck that was designed for ergonomics ahead of capabilities. Now the 2009 is the first of this era to be designed for capabilities instead of comfort.

  • avatar

    The F-150 was the best product Ford ever made. Plus, at your average run of the mill auto parts store you can probably find every part you need to run from now until armageddon. The higher trim line F-150’s have always been the gold standards of automotive seating excellence. I would love one of the leather buckets in my house…Of course, the truck is as big as a house…

  • avatar

    It’s really not Fords fault that some people are 5′ 4”.

    I think the interior is TOO luxurious. I want some hard plastics, a bench seat, and cupholders that are aftermarket accessories.

  • avatar

    If it don’t come with a clutch, it ain’t a proper pickup.

    Nobody makes a half-ton stickshift pickup anymore.

    end rant

  • avatar

    I guess I’m not going to join the TTAC fanboys on this one. Half of this review reads like the prettied up reviews in my local free autonewspaperette; you know, the ones that read like a press release. How can any truck reviewer worth his salt not know that other manufacturers have had cargo rails for years? Even the wording of it (“the factory-installed (a class exclusive) cargo rails”) sounds like it came directly from the mouth of a marketing drone into the ear of the reviewer.

  • avatar

    jgholt: “For once the focus groups paid off…”Focus groups work – if the company actually listens to them. The best examples of why Detroit consistantly bungles new models by ignoring the conclusions of focus groups are the 2001 PT Cruiser and Pontiac Aztek.

    Focus groups said the PT Cruiser would be a hit, yet Daimler tepidly kept initial production objectives low. The result were lost sales due to lack of product when it quickly became apparent the PT Cruiser was a runaway success, exactly as the focus groups said it would be.

    OTOH, focus groups for the Aztek indicated exactly the opposite, that the market wouldn’t support high-volume numbers for the way GM wanted to build and market the vehicle. GM ignored the advice, ramped-up production with lofty sales goals and ended up with lots of unsold Azteks on dealer lots (or had to dump them off to the rental fleets).

    BTW, where are the de rigueur chrome fender vents that seem to be a Ford trademark these days?

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz


    You’re right, the cargo rails being factory installed is not class exclusive. I knew that too – just some over-ambitious copy/pasting.

    As for the rest of your comments, well, you’re entitled to your opinion. I can’t write all my reviews to be negative.

  • avatar

    Bah, no go!
    The grille needs to more closely resemble a bill board. It is just too raked back and low slung to comfort my insecure male ego.

  • avatar

    My dealership is still awaiting its initial allotment of 2009 F-150s, but I did get some face to face time with a 2009 XL recently.

    In uber-base trim level the interior is an improvement over the outgoing model, but it is still very utilitarian. The plastics are hard, but they are free of molding lines and blemishes and are of a good quality.

    The interior shot above looks like an FX-4 with the colorscheme, in other trim levels there is less shiny-silver vs shiny-black.

    I don’t agree with the ‘too many buttons’ thing though. People criticize BMW for iDrive and how you have to go through multiple menus to get to anything, and then criticize any other company if they put discrete buttons so everything is easily done at one touch? Yes, the same functionality could have been acheived with less buttons, but it wouldn’t have made things any easier, and the result would have been just more bare empty plastic.

    Having driven multiple vehicles with the new corporate center stack (this is basically the same setup as the Flex and Lincoln MKS) it is very ergonomic in use, the only issue being that I have occasionally confused the climate and audio knobs when not looking, of course, once someone has had the vehicle more than a week they will remember which is which and problem solved.

    Also, for anyone going for the Luxo-truck version with Nav, it has the new travelink and hard disk powered sync system that allows every function to be controlled by (quite accurate) voice control (from ‘set climate 65’ to ‘tune sirius elvis’).

  • avatar

    For the “purists” in TTAC land who bemoan automatic transmissions in pick up trucks, I submit the facts, for those of us who actually drive a pick up to more places than Lowes or the landfill:

    1. Towing with a stick shift can be a real challenge. Clutches go fast when pulling anything unless the driver is a professional. Since most pick up owners are often seated in a boat seat when a friend pulls up the ramp, I have noticed most of my fishing companions are not professional truck drivers. I would rather my AT figure it out rather than the left foot of a driver who has not used a clutch since high school.

    2. A work truck is often driven by different people. It seems that sticks are popular in Mexico but most Americans need lessons to drive one, especially if the load is heavy with bricks, sod and the like. The lesson can get real expensive.

    3. Driving a stick shift of any vehicle in a major metro area can be a fatiguing experience. Several laps on laps on the Interstates and 400 in Atlanta during stop and go rush hour traffic will convert you, unless you are a glutton for punishment.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    We had a fleet of 4WD pickups and commercial vans. The pickups did double-duty as snowplows, which is murder on drivetrains. GMs were by far the most cost effective, with minimal downtime. Dodges were a distant second, Fords hopeless, and Toyotas too expensive. We standardized on GMs.

    I probably see a dozen 10-year-old GMs for every vintage Ford. I rarely see old Dodges. I don’t know if they’re all in truck heaven, or they just didn’t sell many of them.

  • avatar

    Its kind of rediculous complaining about the cheap-looking innards of a truck like the F-150. It was designed as a work truck — period. Most purchasers are not as concerned about the interior look as they are in the guts. Hard plastic(cheap looking) that cant get scuffed up easy is what most buyers want inside such a truck.

    Crank-down windows are just one less thing to break or get greased up. A dainty looking interior with all the fine cloths, dash, and all the techni gadgets will just get greased up and laughed at by most buyers looking at the F-150. It would be a joke to put all that crap inside a work truck.

    If you don’t want a cheap looking truck interior, there is always the Caddilac.

    Trucks are trucks. If they made them to the specs the average consumer is looking for in a vehicle, they would cease to be what they are- rugged work- horses that are hard to break and can take a beating.

  • avatar

    Funny it’s the best selling car in the world but majority of them were sold in North America and it’s not even a Car.

    I hope the get rid of the steering wheel 2 inch gap play, dash board not even etc etc and the most horrible is the freakin Ford Transmission.

    It never will sell in other countries because who needs it. Towing oh please? Majority of Americans can’t even drive a Stick Shift do you think they can tow a boat or a camper? A lot of people nowadays prefer buying Winnebago or other recreational vehicle that They drive not tow them.

    Who needs 2 gas guzzler at the same time I rather have one.

    Yes it is a contstruction vehicle just remind those guys doing 100 mph on 95 that It’s not a sports car to drive fast especially in winter storms.

    My father never like the F-150 he drives the Ford Ranger. He said it just a pain to drive because it is too big and he never haul heavy and bigger pay load.
    He actually really hates it when he drives in a grocery store he has to look left,right rear and front just to avoid hitting a cart, a person or a car and not only in supermarket but also in parking in Hospitals,movie theater and making a U turn.

    Why is it 4 star. are you reviewing the interior? It is still the old F-150 to me but different interior.

    If Ford made a 4 cylinder with 350 pounds of torque. That would be great but a premature Horsepower not even close to 300 hp thing must be loud.

    Believe me FORD RANGER is Better

  • avatar

    Driving a stick shift of any vehicle in a major metro area can be a fatiguing experience. Several laps on laps on the Interstates and 400 in Atlanta during stop and go rush hour traffic will convert you, unless you are a glutton for punishment.

    Ah, the one main drawback of a manual transmission. Been there, done that. The drive on Unpleasant Hell…er…Pleasant Hill between Alpharetta and Lilburn would make even the staunchest stick driver into a slushboxer, and that was in 2000 & 2001!

  • avatar

    I don’t get the “all new” that Ford and Dodge are peddling for their 09 trucks. Both look to have the same doors/handles and cabs as they did before to me.

    Ford lost my interest with the 04 restyle by needing a stepladder to get something out of the bed, now they keep on going with it by requiring a ladder to get in and out of the cab as well. Shoulda installed that Superduty tailgate cab/handle under the driver’s door instead, or perhaps one of those inflatable 747 emergency slides to get out. It’s also got enough buttons on the dash to land the space shuttle. (Where’s the ‘any’ key? aka Homer Simpson)

    As far as styling goes, the Ram is the much better looking of the two inside and out. Kudos to Ford though for actually improving MPG with this monster.

  • avatar

    As if the F250 and F350 were already not ugly enough! This is something out of the twilight zone! All of Ford’s trucks look like transformers with the bigger F series being optimus prime. Yeah the movie was cool, but isn’t this a little to far. What the hell is Ford thinking. Henry must be rolling over in his grave. What happened to the American truck. Used to be designed simple yet stylish and every brand had its trademark design and they were build rugged to do the job. Now they all look the same with Ford being the worse. GM the second and Dodge looks to be the only normal looking of the three. They all just look more ugly year after year. Get some new designers. I used to be an American truck fan and grew up with GMC and Chevy but now I don’t know what to think.

  • avatar

    I looked at the new F150. I don’t like the new “We’re a big truck now” front grill and neither did I understand the ribbed rear lift gate. But I told myself that I could overlook those unstylish elements. However, upon getting into the truck any thoughts I harbored about purchasing one and driving it home vanished when my eyes settled on the silver craptastic of the dash. Fail. While I’m at it, why must all of these trucks sit up so high? No really. Why?

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • WheelMcCoy: “Save the manuals” will be on my tombstone. Flowers will be arranged in a shift pattern.
  • cheezman88: The funny part is, the Mazda3 has the same exact ground clearance (6.1″). But it rides on a better...
  • ChichiriMuyo: Agree on Suvs, though some cubs are starting to grow on me.
  • Buickman: Buzz Lightshare from Infiniti & Beyond and his Project Pinhead are abject failures. make great product,...
  • geozinger: Yes, let the youngin’s laugh all they want, but they cannot conceive the lows we went through in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote


  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States