By on October 1, 2009

Boom goes the bust (courtesy: aviationexplorer.com)

“I feel like the tailgunner on the Enola Gay,” was the reaction of one Robert Farago to GM’s just-released September sales data. Mr Farago’s quip does perfect justice to the breathtaking horror of GM’s 45 percent decline from last September, itself a dramatically weak sales month. Any remaining hope for GM’s market share clearly died with Cash For Clunkers, as no segment or brand was left untouched by the carnage. And what did a certain Mark LaNeve have to say about the flesh-melting awfulness on the ground in the RenCen? “September was a tough transitional month for the industry, and a difficult year-over-year comparison for GM. Fortunately, the fourth quarter looks brighter and our year-over-year comparisons should look more favorable.” Clearly LaNeve has confused a mushroom cloud for the light at the end of a long, long tunnel.

Buick was down 33 percent, Chevy dropped 40 percent, GMC fell 53 percent and Cadillac declined 8.8 percent. In short, GM’s September results have me reaching for the thesaurus entry for “decline” before even getting to the (official) dead brands walking. It seems like it’s only a matter of time though, before Pontiac (-52.5 percent), Saab (-73 percent), Hummer (-81.5 percent) and Saturn (-83.8 percent) show up as points of comparison for how much better GM’s “core” brands are doing. Oh wait… “As expected, the market returned to pre-Cash for Clunkers levels in September, but we believe that our four core brands – Chevrolet, GMC, Buick and Cadillac – are well positioned with new products,” says LaNeve. Let’s take a look at those brands then.

Buick’s brand-savior LaCrosse is down 11 percent compared to last September’s performance by the outgoing model. Buick’s new lingering houseguest, Lucerne, was off 30 percent. Enclave fell 46.9 percent.

Cadillac’s CTS was down 20 percent, DTS dropped 32.5 percent while STS fell 49.3 percent. The new SRX singlehandedly made Cadillac the best-performing brand, up 238 percent from last September’s 848-unit performance, with 2,866 units sold (nearly a quarter of Caddy’s total volume).  The Escalade variants were down between 18 and 32 percent.

GMC must have torn a gigantic hole through GM’s balance book, as sales of the profit-puffing trucks and utes dropped by more than half. Acadia fell 52.7 percent, Sierra fell 61 percent, and Terrain got off to a weak start with only 1,334 units. Yukon and Yukon XL fell 11.4 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. No other GMC product broke into four-digit sales.

On the Chevy front, Camaro was the third-best selling car nameplate, passing Cobalt with 7,961 units. Aveo fell 52.4 percent, Cobalt was down 55.3 percent, Impala sank 52 percent and the much-vaunted Malibu declined by 46.9 percent. The new Equinox increased sales over last September’s old-model showing by 93 percent, and the new Traverse almost exactly matched the Equi’s volume at 6,863 units. Suburban saw a modest 23 percent increase, and Tahoe declined by a mere one percent. Silverado and Chevy Full Size pickups both fell by just over 61 percent. HHR was off 38.2 percent and the Express fell 57 percent.

Keep in mind that these numbers are unadjusted for selling days. Using adjusted numbers, these declines are between two and three percent worse. And we can’t even bring ourselves to look at the breakdowns for GM’s non-core brands. Looking out over this epic landscape of destruction, it’s extremely difficult to see where GM’s executives find their optimism. On the other hand, Mark LaNeve and Fritz Henderson can only survive at GM if these results turn around fast. Another month like this and another, more thorough executive house cleaning has to be on the agenda.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

64 Comments on “GM September Sales Tank 45 Percent...”


  • avatar
    Logans_Run

    Whatever it is that LaNeve and Fritz are taking, I want some of it! Oh and where are my rose colored glasses? Damn, somebody smoked all those green shoots!

  • avatar
    yankinwaoz

    For what it is worth, I think that comparing Sept. 2009 sales to Sept. 2008 is a mistake. 2008 didn’t have a Cash-4-Clunkers spike and crash. It is too narrow of a window to gain insight into the health of the market or GM.

    I think a better metric would be annual sales to date. That is: Sales from Jan 01 to Sept 30 of each year. If measured like this, how to the sales volume for Q1-Q3 of 2009 compare to Q1-Q3 of 2008? Are they down the same amounts?

  • avatar
    rnc

    Given that ford’s pick-up sales are up over last september, that just isn’t good, is all you can really say.

  • avatar
    rnc

    Just looking at full sized trucks though, C4C didn’t impact those the same way and september was truck month.

  • avatar
    holydonut

    I agree with yankinwaoz – give us a market share report (preferably by vehicle segment) and then you’ll have something more valuable. Or provide a summary of dealer orders for September 2009 versus September 2008. Year over Year retail sales isn’t valid for September 2009 due to the C4C Program.

  • avatar
    highrpm

    AN has an update for all automakers for sales through September 09:
    Chry .716M, down 40%
    Ford 1.23M, down 23%
    GM 1.54M, down 36%
    Toyota 1.296M, 28%

    Chrysler may not even sell 1 million vehicles this year.

    Also, year-over-year is valid since all automakers were involved in C4C. For example, Ford only had a slight sales dip this month compared to GM, although both participated in C4C.

    But remember that sales at GM and Chrysler really started tanking when they filed Ch11 and took the bailout money.

  • avatar
    SunnyvaleCA

    “it’s extremely difficult to see where GM’s executives find their optimism”

    How about: big salaries, big bonuses, big pension plans, and big golden parachutes. What’s not to like?

  • avatar
    highrpm

    SunnyValeCA, I agree with you 100%. If I had a huge salary and bonus plan, and a golden parachute, then I’d spend my days at GM with a tremendous smile on my face!

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    Year over Year retail sales isn’t valid for September 2009 due to the C4C Program.

    Reasonable, and I agree.

    However, do realize that the more that’s true and has an effect, the less effective C4C was as a stimulus. Just pulling sales forward one month isn’t very stimulating.

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    Chry .716M, down 40%
    Ford 1.23M, down 23%
    GM 1.54M, down 36%
    Toyota 1.296M, 28%

    Let’s see…

    GM will likely finish around the 1.9 mark

    Chrysler will sell at .9 million

    Ford at 1.5 million

    Toyota at 1.55 million

    But if we take GM and Chrysler out of the equation we may get both Ford and Toyota at over 2 million units.

    I do want GM to soldier on but I still think the Chevy/Cadillac combination is far better than the requisite collateral damage of Buick and GMC.

    Either that or spilt GM in two and let’s see which one lives… sans a second version of Government backed Chapter 11.

    Chrysler is a completely dead company. Why Fiat thought they could ever turn them around is beyond me.

  • avatar
    Edward Niedermeyer

    Thanks for the feedback guys, but remember it’s just me running these numbers. I’ll report on the major players in traditional TTAC style (unadjusted monthly, year-on-year) and then try to break the data down in other formats in subsequent posts.

    Incidentally, if anyone wants to volunteer the time to help out with additional breakdowns or graphs, please hit us up via our contact form.

  • avatar
    rolosrevenge

    And amongst the carnage was spelling “by more htan half”, “numbers are undajusted for” :)

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    Hyundai up 27%, though.

  • avatar
    RetardedSparks

    What will help the numbers look better for the last quarter is how bad the numbers were for Q4 last year!
    By the time the bailout talk was fast and furious in December the industry was already below 10M. As long as the numbers stay there, things will appear to be “less worse.”
    As said, market share is the more interesting story.

  • avatar
    SunnyvaleCA

    There is so much variability due to product releases, changes in the economy, and rebates that I think a better way to view these numbers is as a graph with 12 month domain and 5 or more years of data overlaid.

  • avatar
    NickR

    Saturn (-83.8 percent)

    Rogers Penske pours himself a celebratory scotch.

  • avatar
    talkstoanimals

    NickR,

    While reading a story about the death of Saturn today I saw a Flash Player ad for Saturn at the top of the page that opened with, “Pardon Our Optimism.” I’m sure Roger Penske would appreciate the irony in that while savoring that glass of Scotch.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    If I recall correctly, Lutz thought GM would be “OK” at about 10 million SAAR and 18-19% share.

    How’s that looking? And what are the giveback levels? Did they crank up the customer cash machine to achieve a mere 45% drop in sales?

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    GM needs to wake up to a horrible fact. Go read the comments about the Chrysler 42% drop. Repeated and valid comments about an outdated, unappealing lineup (coupled with a lack of supply in that they have not produced very much since the bankruptcy). Now with all that said, GM did even worse. This from the company that has all of this supposedly world-class new product here and nearly here. If GM cannot gain ground on Chrysler in its present sorry state, GM has more problems than Ed Whitacre has vee hickles.

    And, when Pontiac, Saturn and the rest fall off of the GM figures, the General’s comparison with Chrysler will be even worse.

  • avatar
    BDB

    We should only compare Chevy, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick to last year’s Chevy, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick sales to be fair here.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Where are the defenders of C4C claiming there were no pull forward sales??

  • avatar
    ClutchCarGo

    “it’s extremely difficult to see where GM’s executives find their optimism”

    Actually, I believe that it’s dispensed from the water fountains there.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    Well, it still shouldn’t be much of a surprise that automaker sales continue to be well down compared with the same month a year ago. Think about it: The credit crisis began last October and we have yet to fully recover. It seems to me that the bad comparative numbers will continue up to October of this year at the very least. Now, I’m not predicting things will get great in November of this year. The economy, markets and auto industry all still have big problems to address. But stats like “sales down 45 percent compared with September a year ago” are to be filed under “well, duh!” as far as I’m concerned.

  • avatar
    BDB

    Where are the defenders of C4C claiming there were no pull forward sales??

    Besides GM and Chrysler (which were in the toilet before C4C, and would still be in the toilet even without C4C) there was no gigantic crash.

    Hyundai, one of the biggest brands to benefit from C4C, was UP 27%. Ford, another big winner, was down only 5%.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    Having the world’s most demotivated dealer network probably isn’t helping.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Where are the defenders of C4C claiming there were no pull forward sales??

    I don’t recall anyone claiming that there would be no pull forward sales.

    In contrast, I do remember some claim that 100% of sales would be pulled forward, which was even more ridiculous.

    I also remember some claiming that bankruptcy would have no impact on market share. Oh, well.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    “John Horner :
    October 1st, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    Having the world’s most demotivated dealer network probably isn’t helping.”

    Ain’t it the truth. My local Ford dealer had a sign out front a month or so ago, looking for sales help. I thought to myself, one would have to really need a job – any job – really badly to take that right now.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Any bets on a continued, steady decline as we head into the Fall? As the pull-forward (that’s the non-pull forward sales to the non-believers) sales continue to erode the sales that might have happened in October, Nov. and Dec., it’s hard to picture an outcome different than continued reduced demand.

    There will be no sustained recovery while consumers aren’t spending and unemployment continues as is or expands.

    Hyundai, the nerdy kid turned cool, is the aberration. Good on them for selling value.

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    Yes, the atom bomb was 100% appropriate.

    and as for the usual tired exsuses by GM (Now it was “very low inventory”)

    this is 100% pure, USDA choice BS!

    Toyota and many other RATIONALLY MAnaged companies had MUCH LOWER inventories (see details in Automotivenews.com data) and did MUCH, MUCH better than GM’s DISMAL 45% drop!!!!

    But as a long suffering taxpayer bailing out these arrogant, incompetent clowns CEOS and VPs at GM to the tune of tens of billions of $,

    I hope their sales continue like that until they totally DISAPPEAR.

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    “Where are the defenders of C4C claiming there were no pull forward sales??”

    They are usually quite close to Detroit and Dearborn and Auburn Hills… and for once I am glad that they are not uttering one word. If they do, be sure I will go medieval on their ignorant heads.

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    Predictably, that Mark LaNeve moron thought it smart to rear his ugl;y head again, and mumble how surpised he was at how poorly GM did.

    Well, we are NOT surprised that he was surprised. Because we know he is a total, USDA choice, MORON. A clueless moron with probably a multi-million $ a year salary, and we are the bigger fools because WE PAY HIM!

  • avatar
    seabrjim

    They gotta keep LaNeve. His quotes are getting more Lutz like each month!

  • avatar
    chinar

    GM had a ~21% market share in Sep 09. The core brands themselves had ~19% market share. Toyota was about 17%

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Another data point for the “C4C didn’t pull sales fwd” crew:

    Total sales Sept 09: 736,609
    Total sales Sept 08: 954,787

    Looks like a 30% drop to me. I’m sure it had very little to do with C4C, though.

    You guys should be sticking with your original argument: C4C was put into place to stimulate spending at a time when it was needed.

    At least that part of the argument is legit. The part that there would be little downstream impact…

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    Here is a PC version:

    Predictably, that Mark LaNeve genius (NOT!!!) thought it smart to rear his beautiful (NOT!!!) head again, and mumble how surpised he was at how poorly GM did.

    Well, we are NOT surprised that he was surprised. Because we know he is a total, USDA choice, You know what. A clueless one too, with probably a multi-million $ a year salary, and we are the bigger fools because WE, the long suffering US taxpayers, are now paying HIM!

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Another data point for the “C4C didn’t pull sales fwd” crew:

    Total sales Sept 09: 736,609
    Total sales Sept 08: 954,787

    For one, you’re building a strawman. Nobody said that 0% of sales would be pulled forward. In contrast, only someone ignorant of economics would claim that 100% of sales would be pulled forward. The actual answer lies somewhere in between.

    For another, you would want to use monthly data to guesstimate a pull-forward figure, not year-on-year. But since you insist, June 2009 sales were 35% below 2008, while May 2009 sales were 36% below 2008. That might suggest that sales are stabilizing, although we’ll need more data to reach that conclusion.

    You also miss that September sales are almost always lower than August sales — car sales are a seasonal business. According to Bloomberg, September sales were 24% below August. That isn’t great, but there is usually a decline of about 10%, while the decline from August to September 2003 was 20%. Not much support for the everything-was-pulled-forward story in those numbers. Again, the answer lies somewhere in between.

  • avatar
    Demetri

    I think that this is part of some major momentum moving against GM. People are aware that GM is doing quite badly and that the government won’t save them a second time. With each month, the sales get worse, and people are reacting. They don’t want to be tied to a dying automaker.

    GM is a zombie who is quickly running out of brains to feed on.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Well, keep talking ‘em down, guys – that’ll help get us repaid.

  • avatar
    Matt51

    GM is dead. An American tragedy. I feel sorry for employees/retirees. Bad management killed GM. Many other excuses, such as unions, but bean counter management killed the worlds largest manufacturing company.

  • avatar

    it’s really quite simple. the trouble is the same failures are still there. once again, zero accountability at GM. no one is held to task, no one is to blame. this company is a joke.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    FreedMike :
    October 1st, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    Well, keep talking ‘em down, guys – that’ll help get us repaid.

    Repaid? Hah. I’ll have some of whatever he’s drinking!

  • avatar
    car_czar

    Matt51 :
    October 1st, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    GM is dead.

    GM has outsold their nearest competitor by nearly 20% this year, and shed BILLIONS in structural cost – and this makes them dead?

  • avatar
    Happy_Endings

    GM has outsold their nearest competitor by nearly 20% this year, and shed BILLIONS in structual cost – and this makes them dead?

    They still can’t sell a car at profit. Unless and until they can do that consistently, they’re dead.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    In most companies you stop making products that no longer sell well. Here, we see products made because to stop making them means:

    1.There is a need to build something else. What exactly we don’t know.

    2.If you stop making these products then you pay union wages for nothing, or try to idle the workers and get out of paying them at all. This causes Strikes.

    They should stop making what doesn’t sell, tell the UAW to strike if they wish but they are not getting paid anyway, and emerge as a Camaro, Traverse, whatever company with about 5 models and a few pickups.

    Considering how God awful last September was compared to years past it’s hard to imagine how they can justify building these cars.

  • avatar
    Demetri

    “Well, keep talking ‘em down, guys – that’ll help get us repaid.”

    Are you crazy? If a thug robbed you and then said that he’d give your money back if you suck his dick, would you do it?

  • avatar
    GS650G

    GM has outsold their nearest competitor by nearly 20% this year, and shed BILLIONS in structural cost – and this makes them dead?

    Check out the stock price of GM YTD.

    That is what dead looks like. And it’s not what you sell but if you make any money. And GM is a long way from making any money. They lose a fortune on every deal, just like the other two.

    Toyota makes money. Hyundai makes money. Honda makes money.

    While Toyota was inventing hybrids, Hyundai diversifying out from Ships to Chips, Honda perfecting motorcycles and small engines, GM was playing the mortgage markets and buying niche car companies all over the Globe. Ford did the same thing. Chrysler is a sob story all by itself.

    These conglomerate companies know how to survive. It’s not about legacy costs, Toyota and Honda have been building cars in the US for 30 years, Nissan about 25. They arrived here with goofy little cars in the 60′s facing 50% GM market share and made it. Hyundai survived the disaster known as the Excel to rebound into one of the top success stories in the current market. At one time US automakers were diversified too, but they squandered their ability and made bad decisions.

    GM is dead. C4C didn’t resurrect it, neither will the Volt. Saturn is gone, Saab isn’t going to make it, Pontiac has had it, and HUMMER will be a memory soon enough.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Demetri :
    October 1st, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    “Well, keep talking ‘em down, guys – that’ll help get us repaid.”

    Are you crazy? If a thug robbed you and then said that he’d give your money back if you suck his dick, would you do it?

    Glad you equate bailing out GM to forced homosexual activity.

  • avatar
    car_czar

    Happy_Endings :
    October 1st, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    They still can’t sell a car at profit. Unless and until they can do that consistently, they’re dead.

    How is it you would know that? I haven’t seen any data on that since the bankruptcy and reorganization. They can’t sell “a” car at a profit? I’d be willing to bet that Corvette, Camaro, Suburban, Tahoe, and Escalade models – all sell at a substantial profit.

  • avatar
    mad scientist

    GM has outsold their nearest competitor by nearly 20% this year, and shed BILLIONS in structural cost – and this makes them dead?

    Unfortunately, it’s not about GM’s present status as much as their direction. Must I add that present status isn’t that healthy, and direction is downward?

    Sad fact about GM’s story is that many other industries and companies in America have already started along the same path.

    My condolences to all of the affected workers.

  • avatar
    Demetri

    “Glad you equate bailing out GM to forced homosexual activity.”

    No, the bailout is the robbery part. The notion that we need to support them and buy their stuff is the forced homosexual portion. Or, if you prefer something less vulgar, it’s like the mob robbing your store and then offering you “protection”. It’s a racket.

  • avatar
    joe_thousandaire

    @Edward Niedermeyer, would you happen to have the numbers on the new model Equinox compared to last years? I’d be very interested to see what happened there.

  • avatar
    npbheights

    Given the choice, I think Americans would rather buy from a company that is not on corporate welfare. Big declines for GM and Chrysler and an up month for Ford speaks volumes. Why support the looters, they’ll do just fine without any customers.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    joe_thousandaire,

    You can always find GM’s latest sales report at:

    http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/sales_prod/

    and it includes model-by-model sales, production results (those are the .pdf links) and the spin press release.

  • avatar
    Happy_Endings

    How is it you would know that?

    Simple math, really. It cost them more to make a car back in 2007 then what they got at sale time. In other words, even before the legacy and health care costs were factored in, they were losing money. Those costs haven’t changed much since they went into bankruptcy. You still have to buy parts, you still have to have someone assemble it, you still have to market it. Those costs have largely stayed the same. The costs that have changed, like pension and health care, weren’t factored into actually making a car.

    Besides, Lutz himself said that they needed to sell 120K Camaros a year to break even. They aren’t on pace for that figure. So unless they are selling the Camaro for about 30-40% more than they were expecting, it’s costing them more to make them then what they get at sale time.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    They can’t sell “a” car at a profit?

    Overall, no, they can’t.

    The constant snow job that was sold to GM investors by management was that the next round of cost cuts would save the business. But the costs were never the essential problem.

    The domestic’s dominant problem has been a lack of pricing power. They have to sell at steep discounts just to get a portion of the volume of the strongest transplant competitors. They can’t make money at those prices, and never will.

    GM is going to need to figure out how to get more Americans to buy more of the bread-and-butter cars, such as the Malibu, and to get those buyers to pay higher prices than they are paying now. Even if they hit the ground running today, that process could take years.

    Cutting costs buys time, but it won’t fix the problem. If GM remains the K-Mart of the automotive business, its long-term prospects will be poor. It wouldn’t die in a year, but it wouldn’t go the distance, either.

  • avatar
    CamaroKid

    They can’t sell “a” car at a profit? I’d be willing to bet that Corvette, Camaro, Suburban, Tahoe, and Escalade models – all sell at a substantial profit.

    and you’d probably lose that bet…

    Camaro? No profit there AT ALL… it will take 100s of thousands of units sold to cover the cost of moving the Zeta production to America (Canada). The Camaro will likely never return a profit.

    Corvette? Might be getting close now… but probably still in the red… the fact they killed the XLR. would lead me to believe that this car doesn’t even cover construction costs… and that they lose money on each one.

    Trucks? Sure a gold mine all of them… Of course the collapse of that market triggered the CH11 in the first place… The Escalade still has zero sales… do we really want to bet the farm on trucks again?

  • avatar
    Jimal

    Does this mean I can finally get a “new” Malibu for a song? I drove one for a few days earlier this year and, with the exception of a manual not being available, I really liked it. I’ve been scanning Car Max and some other sites and even the early off-lease cars are still pricey.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    “September was a tough transitional month for the industry”

    Not so, when you consider that Ford was down only 5%, and Hyundai and Subaru were both up.

    Hey, where’s the demand GM said was needed for CFC and afterward, for which they hired back 1400 workers?

    The self-delusion continues, at the expense of the US taxpayers.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    That might suggest that sales are stabilizing, although we’ll need more data to reach that conclusion.

    This could have easily been a quote from Fritz or Rick. Seriously!!!

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Demetri :
    October 1st, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    No, the bailout is the robbery part. The notion that we need to support them and buy their stuff is the forced homosexual portion. Or, if you prefer something less vulgar, it’s like the mob robbing your store and then offering you “protection”. It’s a racket.

    OK, so we’ve dropped the breathless hyperbole from forced homosexual sex to the Mafia. That’s a start.

    Your premise, as far as I can tell, is that since you disagree with this action, you feel like your money’s being stolen. I’m sorry, but that’s just silly.

    It just means you were on the losing side of a political argument.

    Lord knows I never supported invading Iraq, but my tax dollars sure as hell paid for it. And you don’t notice me calling that “theft,” do you?

  • avatar
    Pch101

    This could have easily been a quote from Fritz or Rick.

    Not really. What I’m really pointing out is that you are highly selective in the data points that you choose to cite, while ignoring the ones that don’t work for you.

    While you’re going on about September-to-September comparisons as if they prove your point, you fail to acknowledge that months prior to C4C saw even sharper year-on-year declines. That’s the sort of selectivity we can expect when your goal is to try to prove your pre-conceived opinions, instead of starting with the facts and using those to form an opinion.

    Do note that I was really chiding you for using year-on-year comparisons in the first place. They aren’t a useful way to prove or disprove your point, as I noted in the prior post.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    “Lord knows I never supported invading Iraq, but my tax dollars sure as hell paid for it. And you don’t notice me calling that “theft,” do you?”

    You are correct, however this simple “loosing side of a political arguement” has not stopped you and your ilk from bitching about the war for 6 years.

    Being an American, a taxpayer, and heading to the war in a few weeks in my case gives one the right to bitch and try to win future political arguements.

  • avatar
    Runfromcheney

    Fritz and LeNeve won’t get fired. Obama will ask them why GM sales are completely abysmal, they will respond, “Its the recession. People can’t afford to buy cars!”, and Obama will just nod and give them another bailout check.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Miquelon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States