By on December 18, 2009

f150

If “the truth will set you free,” as both the Good Book and the founder of this website maintain, then I should probably take this opportunity to come clean: When it comes to trucks, I’m seriously prejudiced in favor of substance over style – which means that most modern trucks are, for my tastes, too light on the former and too heavy on the latter.

f1501For this reason, I purposefully chose to review the two-wheel-drive, XLT SuperCab version of the 2010 Ford F-150. It sits third-from-the-bottom in Ford’s nine-step F-150 model line and seems to represent a greater value than its more up-market siblings. Mainly, though, I was attracted to the fact that it wasn’t drenched in gratuitous glitz like some other prominent members of the F-150 family (I’m stink-eyeing you, Platinum Edition).

That’s not to say the XLT is a shrinking violet, as illustrated by the hardest working grille in show(-off) business (“Say it loud…I’m bright and proud!”). Overall, though, the current F-150 seems a little less coherent in design than F-Series past. Chalk some of this up to the chunky proportions created by higher bed rails, a larger extended cab area, and a shorter rear overhang, all hallmarks of modern pickup design. There are sound engineering reasons for these elements, though, and I can live with the frump of functionality. But other aesthetic anomalies escape explanation: for some reason, the three horizontal creases running the width of the tailgate (terminating into the taillight lenses) appear only at the rear and aren’t continued down the sides of the truck (a la the Ford Flex). Also, the polished proboscis stands up so high that – from some angles – it makes the front of the truck look taller than the rear. Still, I loved my tester’s two-tone Dark Blue Pearl/Pueblo Gold paint scheme, which reminded me of the tan-on-the-bottom Ford trucks and SUV’s of the early 1990’s.

Speaking of the 1990’s, a goodly number of reviewers assail the XLT’s interior for being cheap, plastic, and reminiscent of an earlier, less refined era. And they’re right, but I didn’t see a single excessive panel gap or feel a single not-soft- enough surface that would in any way hinder the truck’s utility or comfort. The 40-20-40 split front bench seat was supportive (if not sumptuous), and useful storage was omnipresent throughout the cabin. Mostly, I’m just happy to see a truck with a bench seat: fixed center consoles seem like such a waste of space. Also, there’s a certain “romance inherent” to bench seats in pickup trucks (and I’m not just speaking metaphorically). But, throwing ice water on the whole affair, the cheap, artificial-feeling ratchet mechanism tries to replicate (on a weirdo miniature scale) the feel of a conventional automatic transmission column shifter. If the transmission’s range selection is fully electronic (which I’m pretty sure it is), then Ford should devise some type of push-button arrangement or something (anything) more positive-feeling than this nervous little pretender. Picture 64

Out back in cargo land, things are nice and practical, with a six-and-a-half foot bed that can accommodate a best-in-class 1,680 lbs. The XLT I drove was equipped with the polarizing $350 optional tailgate step. Say what you will, it doesn’t diminish a thing (except for maybe your ego) and makes getting into and out of the bed less strenuous on several body parts that you might (k)need later on.

Know something else you might need later on? Torque. Too bad, because the XLT is S.O.L. This is at least a little surprising, because the extended cab model comes standard with Ford’s relatively competitive 3-valve 4.6 V8. Although its 320 lb.-ft. looks okay on paper, it doesn’t all show up until 4,000 RPM (and the curve only wishes it were as flat as Ford’s latest domestic sales figures). By contrast, the Toyota Tundra’s 4.6 V8 (admittedly, a much more sophisticated 4-valver) makes 7 lb.-ft. more at 600 RPM less than Ford’s smooth, but aging, mill. Even the Ram 1500’s 4.7-liter V8 makes slightly more twist and seems to have a flatter, more truck-friendly torque curve.

Thankfully, the XLT is equipped with a rev-helping 3.55:1 rear gear to mitigate the F-150’s sloth – it’s good for towing (9,500 lbs), it’s good for acceleration, it’s good for America. (Or maybe it’s just a bad compromise delivering adequate acceleration, a decent tow rating, and lousy fuel economy.) Regardless of your take on the engine or the rear axle ratio, the new six-speed automatic that connects them is class-competitive (despite its pesky gear selector) and light years ahead of the XL model’s yester-decade four-speed Slushie Picture 65dispenser.

What’s neither old nor slushy is the F-150’s chassis. Compared with the damn near indestructible early ‘70’s Ford trucks I grew up with, every underbody component has grown up to be more robust and refined than ever (look, Ma, no I-Beams!). Not only will this truck outlast your mortgage, it’ll do so with more poise than any of its predecessors and most of its modern competitors. Though the ride isn’t as smooth as the current generation of full-size GM trucks or the rear coil spring-equipped Ram 1500, it is generally well-controlled and nowhere near as ponderous as its F-Series Super Duty cousin. Per Ford truckdition, the steering is a low-effort affair and, even though feedback is far from what you might wish for, the F-150’s steering rack seems to benefit from a tighter, more confidence-inspiring ratio than other contemporary full-sizers.

Without a doubt, the F-150 is one of Ford’s most powerful and profitable nameplates, which is probably why the company has pimped the brand out to such a profit-wringing extent over the past decade. Yet, the time I spent with this back-to-basics XLT model was wholly reassuring: underneath what at first seemed like a stage for vacuous frivolity stood an honest, dependable, and most of all, functional full-size pickup. Sure, it’s a series of compromises in several areas, and yeah, I’d want more torque and a better interior for $31,770, but despite the market’s (and the critics’) pressure for Ford to make this vehicle “all things to all people,” it’s nice to know that somebody in Detroit still understands the importance of core truck competencies. In these areas, the F-150 remains, as usual, a serious competitor.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

48 Comments on “Review: 2010 Ford F-150 XLT SuperCab 2WD...”


  • avatar
    WildBill

    I want one… in 4WD, with crew cab, and 5.4 V8.  Uhh… guess I don’t really want THIS one. Now all I have to do is knock over a bank!

  • avatar

    I’m 100% with you on this one D.G.  Only I took it further. I looked for, and bought, one of those F-150 loss leaders you find only in the Sunday paper car ads.  You know the one.  The  ad that shows the most entry-level, stripped, never really made model, with a dozen rebates which apply to almost nobody.  And when you go to the dealer, it was “just sold”!  My ONLY requirement: A/C  (I live in FL).  So, I bought this beauty for  around 15 grand (delivered!  AND I got them to throw in a free bedliner, too) and use it the way it was meant to be used.  A daily, hard working, non-complaining, simple all-in-one, Swiss knife of truck.  I never wash the outside of it.  The interior is 100% vinyl, plastic, and rubber so, once a year, I open both doors and pressure wash the interior and hang it out to dry.  That puny base V6 has towed trailers with other P/U’s loaded on them.  The only thing I do, which I consider mandatory, is do all the scheduled service.  I planned for this to be my last new vehicle.  God willing, it will seve me faithfully for at least the next 20 years which, by then,  one or both of us won’t be around nor care.  If I outlast the truck, I’ll throw it away like a used up BIC and know that over the stretch, my rock bottom cost per mile should be in the Guiness Book of Records.

    • 0 avatar
      Disaster

      I did similar a few years ago.  Bought the previous generation with extended cab, auto trans (so wife could drive), AC and megasized gas tank…the one where you have to use your credit card twice at the pump because you go over the limit.  It cost all of $16K.  The mileage was horrendously bad and I had to get credit approval for the small mortgages required at each refill, but otherwise it was lightyears ahead of previous generation trucks I had driven.  It had a firm…but not too bouncy ride, and handled as well as some cars.  The interior was spacious and the controls well laid out.  I bought a bed cover which paid for itself by improving the mpg about 1/2 a mpg, on the highway.  On one cross country trip I actually got 19mpg…and that was cruising at 70-90mph (down the flat 401 in Canada.)
       
      The truck served me well, but to be honest, I was glad to get rid of it.  Besides the extra grand or so it cost me in fuel per year, it was tougher to park, and I never hauled enough in it to justify the cost vs. the occasional truck rental.

      I hate the grills on the new trucks. Chrysler did a much better job producing that big truck look…without looking totally unaerodynamic. Will someone tell Ford there is a limit to how much chrome should be on a car…or are we destined to repeat the 50′s (tailfins next?)

  • avatar

    A new V8 with more torque is on the way. Anyone know the due date? You’ll be able to order a Raptor with the new 6.2 in just a couple of weeks, but I’m not sure how soon the new engine will be available in the regular F-150.

    The 2009′s reliability has been better than average, based on responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey. But then so have the Chevrolet and Toyota. Insufficient responses for the Dodge.

    About the survey:

    http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php

    • 0 avatar
      Oregon Sage

      Of course there is already a step up the power ladder available with the 5.4 engine.
      I’ve owned two of these, first an 05, and am currently driving an 08 2wd SuperCrew FX2.  I also owned a 5.3 Chevy Crew cab in between and have to agree that the Chevy ride was better (even with 4wd) and the 5.3 feels torquier than the 5.4. Either will pull 20 mpg at a steady cruise on I-5 though, and it is quiet in a way that only a body on frame with massive sound deadening can be while cruising; Ive driven Jaguars that wish they were as quiet on the freeway.  And they are all a bitch to park in a garage or regular parking space.    Must be why our other car daily driver is a Focus.
      Overall I think Gammill captured the flavor of the beast. If you need a truck, which you probably dont, then it is hard to go wrong with one of these.

  • avatar
    NN

    I am very pleased with Ford overall, lately.  However, I’m not impressed with Ford’s effort on this one.  Let’s see…underwhelming powertrain, terrible cheesy huge plastichrome grill, unnecessarily high bed rails that compromise the ease of use, fake transmission shifter.  Plus, say what you will about the old yester-decade 4-speed auto tranny’s, they seem to be more reliable than the newer tranny’s.  I say this because my wife’s Explorer’s 5-speed auto just blew up at 65k.  Made cheap to save probably 1mpg.  Who cares how many gears are in there if it’s shit?  So what does this generation have over the previous one (that I really liked) other than a nicer chassis?  Nothing.
    Ford needs to build an unpretentious F100 that goes back to the roots of trucks being simpler, less flashy, and just durable and practical.  Give me a reliable V-6 and a 5-speed manual or an automatic with a real column shifter & a benchseat.  Nothing fancy.  Make it the size of the old Toyota T100.
    For now, the GM trucks have a simpler, classier, more straightforward style and a better powertrain and would be my choice in this segment.
     

  • avatar
    educatordan

    Went back and picked up a copy of FourWheel and Offroad from 1994.  They reviewed an F150 styleside.  Guess what was their ONLY real gripe?  The seeming lack of “modernity” of the available engines (302 and 351V8s) and that the small blocks were down on power compared to the competition.  Good to know somethings never change.  (BTW this is coming from the owner of a basic 2004 F150 who hopes his truck soldiers on and on and on and on. )

    • 0 avatar
      86er

      The seeming lack of “modernity” of the available engines (302 and 351V8s) and that the small blocks were down on power compared to the competition.

      I wonder how they pulled compared to the pre-Vortec SBC and the LA Chrysler engines and if owners saw any marked improvement in that department when the ModV8 came about. 

    • 0 avatar
      nikita

      I had a ’94  F-150XL  with the 302/E4OD/3.55 combo.  What a DOG!  A Mustang engine does not belong in a commercial vehicle.  4.10 gears were really needed.  It took second gear to get over the “Grapevine” (I-5, north of Los Angeles) with an empty truck! As for the “Heavy Duty” electronic trans, that thing failed constantly, and I didnt tow with that truck.
      I test drove an ’05 F-150 with the 5.4 OHC engine.  I bought the 1st gen Tundra instead and havent looked back.

      The LA Mopars were far better. We also had a ’94 B-3500 15 passenger van with the 360 (3.54 gears) and it did better in climbing power and mileage.

  • avatar
    CyCarConsulting

    I have to give it to Ford. The F series will go down in automotive history as the best all around vehicle ever made. It’s the DC3 of the transportation world.

  • avatar
    davey49

    Unsure whether I prefer console or no console, I’d have to sit in both
    Console means nicer materials and trim usually, no console means I can stretch my right leg a bit when driving long distances or when just sitting in the truck parked.

  • avatar
    Slow_Joe_Crow

    Due to some odd circumstances we spent a week driving around Washington DC last summer in a 2008 F150 XLT Crewcab with the 5.4 V8. That  had plenty of power, plenty of room for 5 people and assorted bicycles and junk, and reasonable handling. The only real problems were parking and gas mileage. Regarding console or no, this truck had either a short console or a bench because there was a short carpeted section of the transmission hump right by the dash that my wife loved to use as a purse holder.
    That said, unless we get a boat or a camper, we will be driving either a car or a compact truck because the F150 is just a bit much.

  • avatar
    NickR

    The 4.6 is a mystery to me. Ford has made 10 millon of them, last I heard. Yes, it seems reliable. But it is also enormous considering it’s displacement (it is distinctly bigger than a 460).  And in most applications it doesn’t seem to be particularly powerful or torquey.

    • 0 avatar
      86er

      In the Panther platform cars it isn’t bad – in the trucks, not so good.

      Hence my question underneath Educatordan‘ s post.

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      Depends on which version of the engine your talking about.  There are all aluminum versions, aluminum/cast iron versions, versions with different numbers of valves.
       
      I’ve got a long bed standard cab F150 and I wish it got better fuel economy (which I think could likely be solved quicker by having the 5speed manual over the 4speed auto I have, or by pairing it with a more modern auto to start with.)  I feel like my 4.6 has decent punch and I’m saving up to add a trans-cooler to my truck and beef up the suspension so if I go crazy and buy a project car on eBay, I’ll have something to haul it home with.

    • 0 avatar
      dastanley

      Sure about that NickR?  The 4.6L is approx 281 cubic inches displacement.  The 460 is 7.5L.  There’s roughly 61 cubic inches per liter of displacement.  I’d say the 460 is certainly more engine than the modern 4.6L (although not as sophisticated or refined). Or are you talking about the 4.6L outer dimensions compared with the older 460?

    • 0 avatar
      NickR

      dastanley – I was referring to external dimensions.  The 4.6 is 2 inches longer, 9 inches wider, and 14 inches higher than the 460 big block.  However it is 120 pounds later which is some consolation I guess.

  • avatar
    swhelan

    $31 grand!? For a B-O-F, 2WD, 3-valver? And a fugly grill? No, thanks.

  • avatar
    James2

    Nice review. Ford should offer, as a no-cost option, a body-colored grille. Especially for the white truck pictured it would go a long way to toning down the looks.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Personally I liked it better before Ford slapped that big obnoxious grill on it.  Great truck  although with the amount of towing I do the less than stellar motors(powerwise) are a major let down. Maybe if that came at the expense of better fuel economy compared to the rest of the field, which it doesn’t, I could live with it. .

  • avatar
    hwyhobo

    Get rid of the useless console, put in a 4l diesel to improve torque and fuel economy, and you will get my attention. While you’re at it, slim it down to the original F-150 size. I can barely reach the content of the bed now, and I am 6-3, fer crying out loud. Sacrificing utility for questionable style in a truck strikes me as dumb.

  • avatar
    findude

    <blockquote>the six-foot boxes of yore</blockquote>
    Dan, I’m going to take the “Jr.” tacked onto your name very literally. The defining characteristic of a “full-size” pickup is that a 4×8 sheet of plywood or drywall will slide right into the bed between the wheel wells and the tailgate will close. Back in those days (“pre-yore”?) the small pickups (Ford Ranger and Chevy S10) had 6-foot beds. That’s why they were considered small! Of course, this was before extended and double cabs became all the rage. It’s a shame buyers can’t choose a well-optioned single-cab pickup with an 8-foot bed.

  • avatar
    findude

    the six-foot boxes of yore
    Dan, I’m going to take the “Jr.” tacked onto your name very literally. The defining characteristic of a “full-size” pickup is that a 4×8 sheet of plywood or drywall will slide right into the bed between the wheel wells and the tailgate will close. Back in those days (“pre-yore”?) the small pickups (Ford Ranger and Chevy S10) had 6-foot beds. That’s why they were considered small! Of course, this was before extended and double cabs became all the rage. It’s a shame buyers can’t choose a well-optioned single-cab pickup with an 8-foot bed.

    • 0 avatar

      Y’know, in the early days of the pickup truck, buyers generally just bought a cowl-chassis and then either added one of various pre-fab cab/bed combinations or went to a coachbuilder or a cabinet maker and had one made up, so they could have any combination they want. There are days that seems the better solution…

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      Well you can still buy them that way if the dealer sells “commercial” equipment, at least the cab+chassis minus a bed.  Only in the 3/4 to 1 ton variety and up.

  • avatar
    srh

    @findude
    Not sure what you’re referring to. I see plenty of single-cab pickups with an 8-foot bed.

    • 0 avatar
      revjasper

      I think the operative words are “well-optioned” in that sentence.  Looking at the inventory at the local dealerships (Portland, OR) for the big 3, there are very few single cabs with 8 foot beds to start with.  Most are the work specials, with one exception. Ford has one XLT at one dealership, 4×4 with Sync. All Chevys are WT trim, all Dodges are ST trim, all but one Ford are XL trim.

    • 0 avatar
      mtymsi

      The reason dealers don’t stock well optioned single cabs is because nobody buys them. The commercial market  is who buys regular cabs and they want plain jane XL trim. You can order a loaded regular cab and get delivery in a reasonable timeframe.

    • 0 avatar
      davey49

      XLT is the highest trim level you can buy a regular cab in so “loaded” like a King Ranch or Platinum isn’t really true.  No leather or navigation as examples

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    The 09′s with the 5.4 & 6 is the way to go. The 5.4 is the last of the FE’s and it’s a beaut for truck service. There was an amazing jump in mileage between the 08′s and the 09′s which I chalk up to the 6 speed. The 4.6 has become a loss leader and isn’t worth the gas in the tank vs. the 5.4, truck usage only.
    As a car engine there’s nothing wrong with the 4.6.

  • avatar
    Don Gammill

    Hey guys, thanks for the positive comments.  And mea culpa:

    Findude (though he got my name wrong) correctly exposed my memory as being less accurate than actual fact-checking.  I incorrectly remembered Ford extended cab truck beds from the mid-’70′s to the early-’90′s as being available in 6-foot and 8-foot lengths.  In fact, they were available in 6.5- and 8-foot lengths, instead.  I’ve e-mailed Ed and asked him to change that sentence to read:
     
    “Out back in cargo land, things are nice and practical, with a six-and-a-half foot bed that can accommodate a best-in-class 1,680 lbs.”
     
    Sorry for the mistake, but as always, I appreciate the Best & Brightest keeping me accurate.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    There are two versions of the 4.6 available on the F150.  The 4.6 2 valve engine comes paired with the 4 speed automatic, and the 4.6 3 valve comes with the 6 speed automatic.  Both are available (along with the 5.4 liter) on multiple trim levels, including the XL.
     
    I’ve had a lot of customers who prefer the 4.6 3 valve to the 5.4.  The throttle response is quicker on the 4.6, and it returns better fuel economy if you aren’t using the pickup for particularly heavy loads (or if you drive it unladen a majority of the time).
    The 8′ bed is available in trim levels up to XLT, and on regular cab and supercab bodies, but on the SuperCab variant it only comes with the work oriented heavy duty payload package.  By far customers prefer the 5.5′ or the 6.5′ beds, as most aren’t carrying around sheets of plywood or drywall, and the extra bed length can make the truck a bit ungainly in parking lots.

  • avatar
    rocketrodeo

    If you like the no-frills look, the STX strikes a nice balance between stripped and garishly optioned. I have spent a LOT of time in every possible trim option of ’09 and ’10 F150s, and my favorites are the STX and XLT (not counting the Raptor, of course). The STX grille is quite tasteful as well. And the XLT Chrome Package has, believe it or not, less chrome on the grille; it’s a billet-style similar to the last H-D grille.
    One thing I do NOT like about the XLT is the white-on-gray gauges. At dawn and dusk they are nearly illegible, which is not a problem shared with any other trim level. One major like with the XLT is the comfort of the seats. I did an eight-day, 4,100 mile drive in one and the seat did not bother my back even once, something I cannot say for ANY other seat in ANY other vehicle. The most comfortable seat, for my 6″2″ frame, that I have ever used–which goes a long way to making it the most comfortable vehicle made, at least for me.  NulloModo, is adjustable lumbar support still available on the STX? None of the ones I drove this year had it, while all of the ’09 STXs did.

  • avatar
    Monty

    Yeah, sorry, I just don’t get the fully optioned versions of p/u trucks. Mine is a reg. cab 8ft box S/L. It’s got the two most important features I want: A/C and and O/D cut-out switch for towing. That’s it. Other than that it’s completely strippo.
    If I was looking for a used F150 to replace my GMC, I would only be looking for the 300 cid I6 with a standard tranny. No thanks for a V8. I much prefer the hauling power that the I6 provides. My brother had a F150 with the heavy duty suspension, and that truck didn’t even break a sweat hauling a box-load of shingles in the back.

    • 0 avatar
      mtymsi

      Ford hasn’t used the 300cid I6 which was an excellent engine since about 96. It was never used in the rounded body style which as my memory serves me started with the 97 model year. That was a 100% truck engine never used in anything but full sized F series and Econolines.

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      Yes it was an excellent engine and growing up in farm country I know many farmers who prefered it over the 302 or the 351 because of low end torque and better fuel economy.  My father (who works for a John Deere dealership had a customer who bought a 97 with the 5.4V8 but kept going back to the mid 80s model he had with the I6 for farm work just cause it was easier on his pocketbook to tow with.)  The off-roading magazines of the time praised the I6 too for being light weight and fuel efficent, giving Ford trail rigs better weight ballance.
       
      I wish the Atlas I6 had worked out better for GM, I looked forward to the day I could get a Chevy WT truck with the I6 and a manual transmission instead of that ancient 4.3V6.

  • avatar
    noreserve

    Damn, that thing has gotten chrome-ugly in the worst Ford way. Epitomizes what is wrong with their current fascination with the shiny bits and just general garishness. Sad that they’ve taken a step back from the previous gen F-150, which I thought was a solid-looking, no-nonsense design. I could live with the current rear end, but that front is a deal breaker.

  • avatar
    NickR

    I wish the Atlas I6 had worked out better for GM, I looked forward to the day I could get a Chevy WT truck with the I6 and a manual transmission instead of that ancient 4.3V6.

    EducatorDan, I actually wrote GM about that.  I said to them that GM had always had an inline 6 as a base truck engine and why not put the 4.2 Atlas in the line up.  I got a perfunctory ‘Thanks for your comments, we’ll pass that long to our product planners.” in return.  *shrugs*

  • avatar
    kenvs

    I’ve owned 4 Ford pick-ups. A 1949 F3, a 1976 F100 styleside, a 1981 F100 Ranger styleside and as of 2 months ago a 2010 F150 FX4 with the 5.4l engine. The grille is body colored and I have the console which comes in mighty handy when using the cab as a pseudo office . The interior syling is much the same as the Toyota FJ Cruiser that I traded in. I find the ride to be very truck like and the interior noise to be less than what I experienced in the Toyota. The test that sold me was the durability testing clips placed on Utube (I’m sure by the Ford marketing dept). The clips are also on the Ford Company F150 site. It was quite funny watching the Ram’s fuel filler door opening and closing on the test track. The engine and transmission combination is suitable for my needs which is hauling tools and equipment around.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    I am not much of a fan of the current droppy crying eyed headlights or massive in your face grille F-150 or it’s dull plain looking sides with cheap  black plastic oversized door handles. Even with the 3V 4.6 and 6 speed it still didn’t feel as quick as a 2010 Silverado extended 4X4 with 4.8 liter 302 HP V8 and 3.42:1 gears hooked up to the old 4 speed automatic. The Chevy rides nicer too overall.

  • avatar
    KtJohnston

    I just got one of the 2010 XLT’s here in Austin [http://www.covertford.com/new-inventory/Ford-F_150/]. I switched to a F-150 XLT and haven’t noticed the torque issue that is mentioned in the article. It is very powerful and able to handle workloads as well or better than its competition that I test drove. Did anyone else pick up a 2010/2011 Ford F-150? Reply with your review.

  • avatar

    I purchaced a 2010 F 150 XLT about a month ago. This is the first time in my life I’ve been able to afford a truck this nice. When I first got the truck it road like a dream. I just got back from a road trip that I enjoyed. But, in the last couple of weeks it has begun to ride very rough. I feel like I’m in a covered wagon. I have been to the dealer twice with the problem. All I get is that, because of the heavy duty suspension, it’s goin to be that way. I’m not buying that. Does anyone have any suggestions?


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 Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States