By on April 3, 2012

Finally, we can dispense with the dumb teasers and show you the face of the 2013 Nissan Altima. Bad news – a CVT is standard across the board.

A 2.5L 4-cylinder makes 182 horsepower and 180 lb-ft of torque. A 270 horsepower 3.5L V6 is also available – but if it’s anything like the engine in the Infiniti JX, the CVT and VQ35 combo should prove adequate. The 4-banger is supposedly good for 38 mpg on the highway. We’ll have live shots shortly. Thanks to VWVortex for blowing the embargo!

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

83 Comments on “New York 2012: Nissan Altima, Now With More CVT, 38 MPG...”


  • avatar
    bugattatra

    A 2.5L with 270HP? Surely you mean 3.5.

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    So, they’re releasing a car with really big cylinders (4-cyl) and fairly tiny cylinders (6-cyl) if both are 2.5L?

  • avatar
    gslippy

    “2012 Nissan Altima” – I think you mean 2013 Altima.

    “270 horsepower 2.5L V6″ – I think you mean 3.5L.

    The Altima has been a steadfast winner for Nissan, but its evolution over the last decade has been painfully slow. I’d be hard-pressed to distinguish my mother’s 2002 Altima (also 2.5L with similar power) from a 2012 Altima.

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      If Honda and/or Toyota don’t up the game, other Japanese family cars won’t either. Everyone crying “the V6 is dead” is wrong, as far as this segment is concerned. When the Camry gets a turbo-4, then so will the Accord/Altima, etc. No sooner.

      Hmm… Camry: 3.5L 268HP V6
      Accord: 3.5L 271HP V6
      Altima: 3.5L 270HP V6

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        Don’t forget the Hyundai/Kia Sonata/Optima, which reduced the expense of designing for both a 4- and 6-cylinder, and instead just went with the 4, either in 2.4 or 2.0T form (274 HP).

        Interestingly, however, despite the alleged HP advantage and torque buildup of Hyundai’s turbo, it gets beat pretty handily by the Camry V6. As a Hyundai fanboy, this is disappointing. But I guess Hyundai can take solace in being a lot cheaper.

        http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1112_2011_hyundai_sonata_se_vs_2012_toyota_camry_se_vs_2012_volkswagen_passat_vr6_sel_comparison/viewall.html

      • 0 avatar
        moawdtsi

        The Chevy Impala has a 300hp V-6 from the Camaro, we need 300 hp in the Altima. And for that mattter, we need 300 hp in the Fusion (via the Mustang V-6).

  • avatar
    afflo

    My girlfriend has a CVT-based Versa. I like it more than a normal automatic, but it still pales next to a proper gear stick.

    I’ve always wondered what a CVT-manual would be like… a sliding lever like an aircraft throttle? Arguments on TTAC about whether to slide it forward or backward for a lower gear ratio?

    • 0 avatar
      toplessFC3Sman

      That would actually seem really neat to operate. You’d have the gas for load and the lever for RPM basically

    • 0 avatar
      Alexdi

      If the CVT is designed well, that’s unnecessary. The throttle becomes a thrust pedal. You’d leave the CVT to sort out exactly what RPM to use, but you could reasonably assume that it would hold the power peak if you called for everything.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      My fiancee and I rented an I4 Altima back in the fall – any issue I had with the gearbox stem from it being two pedals, as it was never really a nuisance, and it never really wanted for power.

    • 0 avatar
      danwat1234

      Paddle shifters.
      Yeah CVTs are becoming more popular, along with automated dual dry clutch transmissions. I’m not complaining..

  • avatar
    blowfish

    “270 horsepower 2.5L V6″ – I think you mean 3.5L.
    thats more logical , or else something is missing for a 2.5 4 cyl to pump out 172, whilst a v6 2.5 can pump out 270!
    Thats F1 ferrari territory.
    remember the good old 70s dino with a 2.4 V6 only pumps out 150 ish HP.

  • avatar
    Sgt Beavis

    The teasers (and a few spy shots) made me think this care would look terrible. It’s not as good looking at the next Ford Fusion, but it’s still pretty good looking.

    The latest generation of family sedans are really pushing the styling envelope.

    Well, unless you’re Toyota or Chevy.

  • avatar
    Rada

    Why is CVT bad? Are there any issues/problems with CV trannies?

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      Google is your friend. Most have been disasters in the real world. I’m pretty sure that more manufacturers have tried CVT and given up, than currently use them. Nissan seems to have done better than most.

    • 0 avatar
      johnhowington

      me thinks the author does not know much about nissan CVTs. Ford and GM mainly had no clue how to manufacture them for reliablity.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        Ford’s CVT wasn’t that bad, but it had problems with dealer maintenance (eg, Ford dealers tended to treat it like an AT; I watched this happen to a Freestyle—it was just filled with traditional ATF like any of the zillion Panthers and F-150s that roll through the shop).

        GM’s CVT was a travesty, as was Honda’s. Mind you, GM has a lot of problems with emerging technologies over the years and Honda had a half-decade of being unable to build an AT that could handle their V6.

        Audi and Nissan haven’t had any problems to speak of. If you look at the actual stats, Honda, Volvo and Chrysler have had worse luck with traditional automatics than Nissan has with CVTs.

      • 0 avatar
        TTACFanatic

        The fact that Nissan had to double the warranty on 2003-2010 MY CVT’s means that they don’t know how to manufacture them for reliability either.

        CVT may drive a little funny (sometimes), but that generally comes down to taste. CVT’s being prone to breaking, and costing way more than a conventional automatic to replace is the main reason they are disliked … and all of this to goose another 1-2 MPG in EPA testing.

    • 0 avatar
      nikita

      Our Honda GX had one and it was a disaster. Three replaced under warranty, and then we sold the car.

      A retired Ford transmission engineer on a Ford forum disagrees with just blaming dealers for wrong fluid. There were real problems with the design. Ford cant seem to get its act together with DSG transmissions either.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert.Walter

        The ford cvt was badly designed by the Zf company, and remedially patched by ford when Zf failed to do the job. It was deemed good enough for launch, but dropped when new engines became available.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    Nissan does have a 2.5 v-6…don’t forget the g25 but it makes like 220 hp in that application. I wish more manufacturers would do small 6s like that. they usually are really smooth rev happy engines. Not sure how the fuel economy stacks up though (the g25 is nothing hugely impressive).

    • 0 avatar
      PlentyofCars

      Toyota use to have a little 2.0 liter straight I6. Never appeared in the US Market.

      It was the engine for the Lexus IS200 until 2005, as well as other asia market Toyota’s. 160hp.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    38 mpg? Keep going, I’m getting interested…

    Problem is, I’m getting over 30 mpg on my aging Impala, and not having a monthly payment buys lots of gas, so I can’t see making a move unless I can find something that’ll net me around 50 mpg and is comfortable. The Altima I rented last year gave me fits as to comfort – it wasn’t.

    • 0 avatar
      musicalmcs8706

      I had one a few weeks ago for a rental and I thought it wasn’t comfortable either. For short trips around town it was great and the motor was plenty fast enough, even compared to my LS 3.8 Impala. But the two hour drive to where I was going got very old very fast. I’m glad to hear it wasn’t just me.

  • avatar
    windnsea00

    The last generation Altima was one of my least favorite cars in its class and has nearly become the “Taurus/Impala” of rental fleets.

    • 0 avatar
      4LiterLexus

      My family and I rented an Altima when we visited the Philadelphia auto show in february, and the unholy drone of the 4-cylinder coupled with the cheap and ugly dash made for a bad trip.

      At the show, I asked my cousin to participate in the “Altima Challenge”: find a midsizer with a less inviting cockpit. Neither of us won the challenge, though I did leave impressed with the new Camry, the smaller Cruze, and the Passat.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      I must have had a dozen Altima rentals in the past six months, from a Hybrid to a V6. All deathly dull. I will say the 4 cylinders do get very good mileage, I usually average well over 30mpg. In fact the Hybrid was not that impressive in that it only bettered the regular car by ~4mpg – same location, same driving too. The V6 is WAY faster than the chassis can deal with, and is completely pointless, IMHO. The interiors are really rather nasty all around, the mouse fur cloth especially.

      I have two friends with current-gen Altimas, both have had to have the CVTs replaced under warranty.

      My rental du jour is Rav 4, and I have to admit that I am surprised how much I like it. Not a bad little CUV-thing.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        I have to take exception with many of your comments. I agree with the comment about comfort and seat cloth. The seats are not comfortable for long trips and that cloth is not attractive at all. But that cloth is wearing very well, so I don’t think it is a cheap as you think. I have the hybrid and with continual driving with no regard for mileage consistently returns 34, the same as you. How you get 30 on the 4 is pretty amazing. But deathly dull? Try driving a Prius with the horrid body lean, sloppy body control, and a sluggish helm. In comparison the Altima is a sports car. I was so happy to return the Prius loaner. The dash is traditional in style but well made and with quality materials. Yes there are some cheap spots but “nasty”? I’d like to know what you are comparing this to. So far I have t
        45K on the Toyota (IIRC)sourced CVT. I can’t imagine that a RAV could offer this level of driving dynamics.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        @golden2husky

        Drive a 3-series and then get back to me about how sporting the Altima is to drive… It’s better than a Camry, but isn’t everything? The interior is just SOOO hard plastic and drab. These cars are just not THAT cheap – a rental spec 2.5S retails for $25K! A base Passat is the same money, and much, much nicer. Or a CPO 3-series.

        Never said the RAv 4 had as good a dynamics, of course it doesn’t. I am just surprised by how much I like it as a rental.

        Good luck with the CVT, as I mentioned, both friends I have with this car have replaced thiers before 75K, and several of the rentals I have driven have acted funny or made wierd noises.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        krhodes1

        Of course a 3 series is going to blow away an Altima in terms of handling; two of my friends have manual 330i BMWs and I have driven them both. But a 3 is not a competitor for an Altima. Compared to its primary competitors, I’d give the handling award to the Altima. The Mazda 6 has just gotten too large to win this award. I have to add that I did not buy my Altima; it is part of my compensation but I really do like it. I don’t like the CVT either, but this is my commuter. It is the worst part of the car.

  • avatar
    Wraith

    38 mpg hwy trumps all the other non-hybrid, non-diesel midsizers on the market. The Camry and Sonata/Optima were on top w/ 35 hwy, and the new Fusion w/ 1.6L EcoBoost is estimated at 37. The mild hybrid Malibu is at 37 hwy. Better than a fair number of compacts, too. The poor Sentra only manages a 34 hwy.

    Hopefully the official numbers meet the estimate.

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    I know I’m one of the 5% so my voice hardly counts, but the reason I got an Accord over Altima last year is because the 3.5SR manual did not have nav as an option. No, the 6-speed had every option available but nav. I even got the V6 coupe Accord with nav for the same price as Carmax was pushing the new Altima SR’s without it.

  • avatar

    Derek, I really wish you’d stop editorializing. And if the CVT were bad news then it wouldn’t be adequate.

    I read almost all your work though

  • avatar
    Acubra

    CVT-only effectively cuts off both Maxima and Altima from my “interested” list. Test-drove the Maxima and the Murano and mildly liked both, but the CVT ruined the whole picture. A conventional auto in Infinitis is so much better…

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Really? Because it isn’t a bad take on the shift-it-for-you transmission. It actually doesn’t do some of the things a good CVT ought to, such as peg the engine at 4000rpm during moderate acceleration.

      Quantitatively, what’s wrong with a CVT, other than “I don’t like it”? It’s more efficient than any automatic and often results in a quicker car (no shift lag, no climbing to a torque peak, etc. Maybe I’ve ridden one too many snowmobiles, but they seem to just work, and Nissan’s implementation has proven reliable.

      I mean, versus a manual, sure, but there’s no real shortcomings to Nissan’s CVTs vis a vis a traditional automatic.

      • 0 avatar
        Acubra

        Most of all I disliked its acceleration, or the lack thereof.

        The Maxima would actually run pertty quick in the end, but you would never feel it – not good for something with “sporty” aspirations. The Murano accelerates like a pregnant cow. And with lots of moooo, if really pressed.
        Good for a school run may be, not so much when you after some fun.

    • 0 avatar
      Alexdi

      Watching the and feeling the revs rise and fall with a conventional auto feels weirdly archaic if you’ve lived with a CVT. I’ve got a Maxima and I recently spent a day with a friend’s new M35. The 7-speed AT felt more authoritative in first gear (the Maxima tends to wind up until about 35 MPH), but after that, it was no contest in speed or smoothness. I do think the 7-speed is a better performance transmission though, primarily because it feels more directly connected and is a bit faster to respond.

      Additional note: the Maxima’s CVT has a pile of transmission profiles. Most are fuel-economy biased. The only way the car knows to boogie is if you’re abrupt with your inputs, or you push the pedal to the floor. If you don’t do either, it’s bound to feel a little sluggish, particularly from a slow roll.

    • 0 avatar
      potatobreath

      Yes, you need to be aggressive with your inputs to activate the sport programming. Floor it, and the CVT takes off with verve.

      I can’t say the same with Chrysler-tuned CVTs though.

  • avatar

    New interior appears much more upscale in the photo, but impossible to gauge materials. How will they differentiate the Maxima?

  • avatar
    Contrarian

    I rented a 2011 CVT Altima with the 4 banger last month and put 2k miles on it. Once you get used to it, the CVT is quite adequate and functionally equal to or superior to an auto, IMO. I found the Altima to be a very solid feeling car, even this long-in-the-tooth rental @ around 35k miles had no rattles and “shifted” (or slid?) and ran well. I found it to be in the higher tier of many of the other midsizes I’ve driven. I would def recommend a look if shopping this segment.

    Mileage was right at 30.5 (indicated) at 80MPH highway. And the 20 gallon gas tank really gives the sucker a good range (And a big hit at the pump if empty). I did Toronto to Milwaukee on basically one tank.

    • 0 avatar
      Wraith

      I was going to check back to the press release at VWVortex, to see if it referenced fuel tank capacity, but the thread’s been removed.

      Presumably they’d downsize the tank a bit to save weight, but still have good range w/ the fuel economy bump. But if it stayed at 20, that’d be putting it nearly in Passat TDI territory for highway range.

  • avatar
    InstantKarma

    I don’t really get the CVT=bad vibe here. You may like manual transmission–and that’s fine–but as between a CVT and an regular auto-box, I’ll take Nissan’s CVT, thank you very much. I drove a Maxima for a couple months last year and thought it was a lot of fun to drive. and it really MOVED too.

    As for the HP numbers on the V6: the old 2002 produced 255, I think. This one is well up from that, but Nissan clearly wants to leave room above the Altima for the Maxima to have the edge.

    • 0 avatar
      mikedt

      because we don’t trust them. We’re too worried that we’re going to have a 5 grand transmission repair before we hit 100k miles (same reason I wouldn’t touch a dual clutch transmission). Warrant the transmission for 200k and I bet they’d sell like hot cakes.

      • 0 avatar
        InstantKarma

        Fair enough, though I’m not sure that many transmissions survive wholly intact for 200,000km. How many clutches is that?

        I too am curious about the longevity of the CVTs, but my main concern is that people seem to equate the CVT with a crappy drive. It isn’t so. It’s certainly less personal than a manual, but it isn’t any worse than an auto for driving dynamics. Also, the Maxima had some virtual gears you could engage to make the engine sound like we all think engines should.

      • 0 avatar
        tankinbeans

        InstantKarma

        “Fair enough, though I’m not sure that many transmissions survive wholly intact for 200,000km. How many clutches is that?”

        I always have trouble converting km – miles, but my brother has a 1994 Corolla DX with 225k miles on it, the last 80k being very abused miles, and it’s still chugging along with the original clutch. The clutch is only now starting to show sporadic signs of giving out. Maintenance is only a suggestion for my brother. The last time he had a real oil change was 2 years ago.

        He worries about doing a real oil change, right now he just tops it up when it gets low, because he’s heard it can blow the engine. I don’t think this is true, but try explaining this to him. My dad was always the “3,000 mile change or don’t bother” type.

      • 0 avatar
        Robstar

        ++.

        I’ve heard so many horror stories about CVT transmissions* that I refuse to buy one. It’s stick for me & conventional auto for the wife. So far both have treated us fairly well. Even our beater neon lasted to 210k (previous owner replaced the first tranny at 75k) before the transmission died.

        Maybe in another 10 years I’ll consider them when all the “bugs” have been worked out.

        * Prius excepted — I’ve heard nothing but good things about the Prius CVT

    • 0 avatar
      PJ McCombs

      +1 InstantKarma. If I have to drive a two-pedal car, I’d rather it be a CVT–treating the pedal like a boat throttle is at least relaxing, compared to the way a conventional auto hunts around in a bad impression of a manual.

      There’ve been a few CVT disaster stories, but IIRC they’ve been highly model-specific. Prius is CVT-only and is one of the most reliable cars on the road.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        The CVT in a Prius IS a “continuously variable gearbox”, but it has absolutely NOTHING in common with the CVT transmissions used in non-hybrid cars. Completely and utterly different design, even though the result is the same. The Toyota HSD is a planetary gear drive transmission with an electric motor/generator that varies the gear ratio – conventional CVTs are all belt or chain-driven with some sort of clutch arrangement to disconnect drive when stopped.

      • 0 avatar
        Herm

        its not really a transmission, but a continuously engaged 2 piece planetary gear setup.. no clutches or sliding cones anywhere and that is why its bulletproof.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    It will be interesting to see this car reviewed. Personally, I thought the old Altima was highly under-appreciated: it handled well, drove well, had a good ride, sane ergonomics, decent reliability, acceptable power and was all-around quite a good car (Consumer Reports agreed, and gave it top spot). About the only complaint was a lack of rear-seat headroom due to the fast roofline.

    For all the talk about the Sonata (which rides comparatively poorly), the Fusion (not the greatest seats) or the Mazda6 (fuel economy, front-seat headroom, not actually that sporty), it’s this car that really should have gotten more praise.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      I concur. It was way more fun than its competitors…

    • 0 avatar
      laphoneuser

      I also agree. I rented a four cylinder Altima about a year ago while my Jetta was being worked on, and I was quite impressed with it, especially with the steering feel. I would buy it over my friend’s new Jetta I drove any day of the week (or weekend).

      As far as the CVT goes, I had mixed feelings about it.

  • avatar
    wstarvingteacher

    I notice that others in the CVT business dropped out (suburu/saturn). I think the problem was the longevity of the unit. Does anyone have any legitimate information that indicates the nissan CVT will still be there in 200kmi? I know they work well. I love manual transmissions but my wifes left knee makes me the duty driver.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    The interior looks interesting but the exterior looks too familiar with as expected plainer sides and minor sheet metal tweaks coupled with familiar Altima looks. 38 MPG sounds interesting and I wonder what they sacrificed to get that high of a rating. So far of the newly introduced 12/13 models the only one with semi interesting styling is the Fusion. Everything else looks too close to what came before with very minor and busier sheet metal and in your face grilles and huge over sized tires. The new Fusion doesn’t look anything like the out going model.

  • avatar
    Porsche986

    I never understand the way readers here are SO narrow minded about CVT’s… yes, Ford’s sucked, and yes the Subaru Justy sucked (hell, that WAS 20 years ago now folks), but Nissan has been putting them in almost everything now for quite some time, and I have one in my company car 2011 Subaru Legacy… I actually average better mileage (36mpg) in the Legacy than they advertise (all highway) when not using AC. Yes, it’s weird if you’re not used to it, but once you are it’s a piece of cake.

    I should say too, I LOVE a good manual transmission (and have mostly owned manuals on my personal cars) but in Chicago commutes a manual transmission is a nightmare.

    Just my two cents…

    • 0 avatar
      wstarvingteacher

      ok. I’m a long time Nissan fan. Probably could sell me a Subaru too. Owned batches of nissan trucks including over 200kmi automatics. The question remains. Any ideas on how long the CVT transmission will last?

  • avatar
    sckid213

    A buddy gave me a ride in his late-model Altima (I’d say it was a 2010 or 2011) the other day and I was surprised at how cheap, hollow, and…plastic the interior felt. Was definitely not impressed. Hopefully they’ve addressed that issue with this new model, especially since Camry upgraded its interior more than I think anyone was expecting.

  • avatar
    icemilkcoffee

    It seems like all the CVT equipped cars are getting pehnomenal gas mileage on the EPA tests, and mediocre gas mileage out in the real world.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Consumer Reports got quite good mileage off the last (CVT equipped) Altima on their tests, which are probably as reasonably near-real-world as it gets.

    • 0 avatar
      PhilMills

      2012 Outback with the CVT, here.
      EPA says 22 city, 29 hwy, 24 combined.

      I’m pretty gentle on the acceleration but I can get around 24-25mpg in town. My wife is less – closer to that 22 – but she’s coming from a V6 Accord coupe and consequently drives with a much heavier foot than I do.

      I’m pretty satisfied with the mileage I’m seeing – it meets or beats the 2001 Accord that it replaced.

  • avatar
    FromaBuick6

    I’ve driven a loaded Altima 3.5SE with the CVT a couple of times and hated it. I really liked everything else about the car, especially the V6, but the CVT absolutely ruined the driving experience.

    The manual hasn’t been available on the sedan for at least a year (it’s still available on the coupe). As I recall, though, the reviews circa-2007 said it sucked almost as much as the CVT.

  • avatar
    Hezz

    I drove my 96 Maxima for 12 years. Three kids in the back, wife and I in the front, 28MPG on the highway for 200K trouble free miles. Clutch was original when we traded it in last year, only real work we did was a knock sensor somewhere around 140K miles. Was the kind of car that could build some real brand loyalty, we bought it because we wanted a nice sedan with a stick shift.

    We still like nice sedans with a stick shift, goodbye Nissan, it was nice while it lasted.

    • 0 avatar
      28-cars-later

      I have a friend with s 2000 approaching 180K also with the 5spd. I never saw one before until I started working with him, it amazes me other automakers didn’t follow suit… unless Toyota/Honda did offer a stick in their Camcords and I am just ignorant.

  • avatar
    Joss

    thought the whole point of CVT was simplification i.e. fewer components with the belt being the main stress point. Like a timing chain provided its replaced by mileage due, Nissan’s JATCO shouldn’t have serious issues… But then I’m remembering the old DAF days.

    I wonder if this Altima four will find its way in Sentra i.e . will there be SER/SPEC V? I heard interest was way down.

    • 0 avatar
      nvdw

      “But then I’m remembering the old DAF days.”

      With proper maintenance, in the variomatics in their last incarnations you get 100kkm (60kmi) with a set of those ‘rubber’ belts. That’s more than you get from a set of tyres. And even then, replacing them sets you back $200 (belts are still available).

      CVTs are wonderful transmissions. It’s just getting used to no more shift points.

  • avatar
    Speed Spaniel

    A new Altima!!! Thugz of the world rejoice.

  • avatar
    Robert.Walter

    If Daimler had any brains, they would have put a cvt in the smart car!

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    CVT’s are much hated by enthusiasts. I asked some Car and Driver readers why..and they told me.

    #1. They are slow off the line – due to the CVT’s inability to handle high torque. If you notice (and I researched this a bit) the ‘lowest’ gear in a CVT is higher the lowest gear in the new 8 and 9 speed autos. So effectively they don’t put as much power to the road when you really want it – off the line. CVTs are like taking off in 2nd gear on a manual transmisson..

    #2. They are programmed for efficency and seem unwilling to shift down as aggressively in passing situations. For example the new ZF eight speed will do an 8-2 downshift. The CVT doesn’t seem keen on that idea.. So its not as repsonsive.. This is the ‘other’ time you want to go fast. No one really cares about top speed IMHO..

    #3. Many people seem to think they can’t be rebuilt. They simply die and give very little warnings as to when. And the cost of a full replacement is often pretty high.

    #4. The constant droning that you get from them many people find annoying..

    Anyway its not at all certain that CVTs will beat out conventional autos or the more efficent DSG style transmissions. From an enthusiast standpont these thing seems to be the most hated.

    Being slow off the line and slow to respond in passing situations isn’t worth a few extra MPG for alot of enthusiasts. For the focus crazed about gas mileage numbers and who just want smooth ride they probably worth it..


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