By on September 12, 2012

The car industry is slowly getting healthy again (except in Europe.) Worldwide sales are up 6.8 percent so far, and it looks like 81 million units could be sold worldwide this year, as data by LMC Automotive show. This has the Worldwatch Institute up in arms. Basically, it wants us to buy fewer cars and drive them less.

Woldwide Light Vehicle Sales, August 2012
Aug’12 Aug’11 YoY YTD 2012 YTD 2011 YoY
WORLD    6,335,746    5,888,585 7.6%      53,994,214     50,545,891 6.8%
USA    1,283,046    1,069,843 19.9%         9,692,378        8,446,120 14.8%
CANADA        149,301        140,440 6.3%         1,162,254        1,087,474 6.9%
WESTERN EUROPE        750,781        818,745 -8.3%         8,967,580        9,710,521 -7.7%
EASTERN EUROPE        410,128        379,535 8.1%         3,197,898        3,001,847 6.5%
JAPAN        365,210        325,054 12.4%         3,756,479        2,576,039 45.8%
KOREA           94,706        120,884 -21.7%              963,428        1,026,037 -6.1%
CHINA    1,487,198    1,363,211 9.1%      12,361,487     11,591,521 6.6%
BRAZIL / ARGENTINA        414,959        385,895 7.5%         2,814,658        2,850,770 -1.3%
OTHER    1,380,416    1,284,978 7.4%      11,078,053     10,255,562 8.0%
Source: LMC Automotive

Says Worldwatch Senior Researcher Michael Renner:

“Automobiles are major contributors to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Greater fuel efficiency, along with the use of cleaner fuels, can help mitigate these impacts, although increases in the numbers of cars and the distances driven threaten to overwhelm fuel economy advances.”

Worldwatch singles out China as “the major driver of increased production and sales.” China had the nerve to grow its passenger vehicle fleet “at an annual average rate of 25 percent during 2000-11, from fewer than 10 million cars to 73 million cars,” says Worldwatch.

What the study does not mention: In the U.S., there are 240 million light vehicles on the road. That is one car or light truck per 1.3 people.

Using the Worldwatch number of 73 million cars in China, there would only be one car for 18 Chinese.

Cause to be alarmed even more: The official number is 114 million automobiles on China’s streets, one automobile for 11 Chinese.

Wait until Chinese car ownership reaches the standards of the developed world, that is one car for two people. Chinese car ownership would rise to 673 million cars, or about the same of what we now have on the road in the whole world.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

60 Comments on “As Auto Production Roars To New Records, Worldwatch Institute Sounds The Alarm...”


  • avatar
    danio3834

    ugh, totalitarian groups…

  • avatar
    Freddy M

    Gotta love watchdog groups and their single-issue tunnel vision attitude.

    • 0 avatar
      Jamez9k

      Except here the “single-issue” is about the very foundation of our existence. The environment isn’t a side issue, it’s at the very top of everything else. No hospitable environment, no human life, no society, no economy, no cars. Everything derives off of it.

      Just like you wouldn’t consider eating a “single side issue” and stop buying groceries so you can put gas in your car we shouldn’t destroy our means of survival as a species so we can all go cruising on Saturday night,

      I love my cars and driving but I’m still very much aware that I can’t enjoy them if I’m struggling to survive in a world falling apart at the seems.

  • avatar
    Neb

    If I were concerned about greenhouse gasses, I think I’d be more concerned about China’s 2000 coal fired power-plants. I mean, if the cars have western-standard emissions controls, then they are remarkably clean burning.

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      Clean burning cars still emit CO2.

    • 0 avatar
      Neb

      @icemilkcoffee

      True. But I figure if you want to reduce CO2, you’d tackle the low hanging fruit first.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      If I were in the AGW business, I’d be most concerned that the cooling of the southern hemisphere is going to give my game away and destroy my credibility with anyone sentient. It is time for a new rationalization for wanting to kill billions of people. The wheels are coming off this one.

      • 0 avatar
        vaujot

        Sorry, are you suggesting that people concerned about global warming want to “kill billions of people”? Or whom are you refering to?

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        CJinSD,

        What “cooling” of the Southern hemisphere is that? Nobody has been discussing anything like that, lately. Got a link?

        This is the big news in Climate Change this month:
        http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

        And that is the current buzz because Arctic ice decline is running way ahead of what almost everybody predicted.

        You don’t have to believe in Climate Change but science doesn’t care about your belief system, science is merely content to be useful.

        The predictions of climate science in the 1890′s, 1930′s and 1980′s have all come true. That’s “useful science.”

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        CJinSD,

        I’m squinting pretty hard at this but I’m not seeing your Southern hemisphere cooling trend:

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif

        Can I get a little help, here?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “kill billions of people”

        While they directly do not advocate for it, actually isn’t the death of billions what the AGW faithful preach?

        The seas will rise!
        The crops will wither!
        Starvation and flooding!
        Praise the Gore!

        Here right from the serpent’s tongue:

        Climate change acts as a “multiplier of other resource crises,” according to Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale University, causing uncertainty about resources, leading to “the ecological panic that I’m afraid will lead to mass killings in the decades to come,” Mr. Snyder told the symposium.

        “We’ve entered into this moment of ecological panic,” he said. “Global warming will itself almost certainly directly cause mass killing, but it will likely indirectly cause it” as major states like China and the United States seek to feed their citizens, possibly touching off shortages elsewhere, in places that would then be at risk.

        nytimes.com/2012/07/25/world/clinton-and-other-experts-discuss-ways-to-avert-genocide.html?_r=2

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

        Read the story and notice just how many AGW figures lie no matter how contrary the evidence is to their basis for enslaving mankind.

        If anyone wants to quit carrying a rifle in the war on the middle class, feel free to start reading the articles featured by this blog: http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

        @ CJinSD. AGAIN with the link to a Rupert Murdoch based “news” source? Got to stop being a troll for the right wing and get out of the wall street cubicle more often. Go breathe some fresh air and remove the tin-foil hat for a bit. Do you some good.

        @28DL; I fail to see what a Prof at Harvard has to do with the entire ecological society wanting to mass murder billions of people. I believe he is just trying to point out that with more people and less resources, the possibility of a global war rises, not the advocation of doing it himself.

        Having been deployed to every third world shit hole the Army has found fit to put up the flag, I can attest to the amazing propensity of violence once resources such as water, food, and fuel become scarce, but guns, ammo, and explosives are plentiful.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        CJ,

        I like that the story is only three years old. Nothing has happened since, I suppose? You wouldn’t like to go get something more recent, would you? You wouldn’t like to explore the relationship between the ozone hole and warming or cooling at the Pole, would you?

        It references work to be published. Did you think to look that up to see if it went the way Murdoch’s minions said it would go?

        Of course, your claim was “Southern hemisphere” cooling and this article makes no mention of that. You wouldn’t intentionally misrepresent a news article, would you?

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        You don’t like a three year old story because you want everyone to start every morning a know-nothing empty vessel so they ignore how the lies told by the totalitarians yesterday didn’t pan out. Sorry, I’m not dumb enough to be an AGW believer. I remember the coming ice age, the hockey stick, how global warming became climate change when the damned warming trend wouldn’t manifest, how numbers were faked or excluded for not fitting the lie. Nobody involved has enough credibility to justify enslaving mankind and creating resource shortages that will kill multitudes.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        Au contraire. I don’t mind a three year old story. Unless it’s out of date, misleading or misused.

        I’m not surprised that you didn’t take the time to check the primary sources and look to see if there was updated data. Nor am I surprised that you misinterpreted – or intentionally misrepresented – the gist of the story.

        By the way, I was taking a flyer on the relevance of the ozone hole. It was merely an educated guess that it was important. Yes, it turns out to be quite relevant, although the mechanism involved is not what I expected.

        CJ: “I remember the coming ice age, the hockey stick, how global warming became climate change when the damned warming trend wouldn’t manifest, how numbers were faked or excluded for not fitting the lie. Nobody involved has enough credibility to justify enslaving mankind and creating resource shortages that will kill multitudes.”

        You remember quite a lot of stuff that isn’t so, some of which you simply don’t understand and quite a bit more stuff that’s pure imagination. Have you considered a career writing scripts for B movies? You should, nobody expects them to make sense, either.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      China is working on their particulates and sulfur emissions which, ironically enough, isn’t going to help the global warming situation (particulates are probably depressing global average temps a little bit).

      The air sure is dirty over there – and they’ve noticed this.

      China doesn’t have a denial-machine in place but with a few hundred million people still living at subsistence, they might be expected to have other priorities.

      Even so, they’re taking the lead in solar power panel production. We’ve seen some real innovations here in SPV production, such as very fast roll-to-roll processes at companies like Solyndra. But when our innovative solar industries are overpowered by cheap, subsidized traditional panels built by cheap labor coming from China, we don’t find a way to help the nascent industry through the crisis, to preserve our technological lead and build for the future. Instead, political hacks attack Obama for being such a fool as to loan money to launch a 21st century endeavor in the first place.

      The Chinese don’t ignore the low-hanging fruit of solar heating, either. Plenty of buildings have those new, innovative little solar hot water heaters on their roofs.

      However, they do have plenty of coal plants. Enough – and enough other use of fossil fuels – that they have actually passed us by in total CO2 emissions. On a per-capita basis, however, we’re still maintaining a 3 to 1 lead.

      And we’re not doing anything about our emissions. Except attacking Obama for looking for strategies to reduce them (that don’t involve anything painful or the word “tax”).

      When I was young, we were a world leader. Now we’re a finger-pointer and an excuse-maker.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    With 12 million cars sold in Europe, how is it that only the big 3 German brands are doing well? Was that 8.3% downturn all that stood between profit and loss for Fiat, PSA, Opel, etc?

    • 0 avatar
      tatracitroensaab

      Costs for European manufacturers are incredibly high due to unionization and over regulation. The premium German brands can afford high manufacturing costs, and Volkswagen can deal with it because it’s organizations are incredibly globalized and their manufacturing process is incredibly efficient at using economies of scale. PSA and Opel are in such big trouble because they are incredibly dependent on the Euro market – Fiat and Renault are only holding on because of Chrysler and Renault, respectively. Actually Fiat is a little more globalized even without Chrysler but the point still stands.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      That 8.3% downturn is after already weak sales in the past. The car business is extremely high fixed cost and volume dependent. The best performers still net only a few % of sales dollars. When volumes fall below breakeven, losses mount very fast. We have not seen global German carmaker’s break out their financial performance in Europe, while the three you cite are hugely dependendent on Europe with much smaller presence elsewhere. Powerful Unionism essentially prohibits manufacturers from responding to reduced volumes by reducing labor costs, exacerbating losses even more.

  • avatar
    lmike51b

    “Basically, it wants us to buy fewer cars and drive them less.”
    My wife and I haven’t bought a car in about 6.5 years. Our ride to work together is about 7 miles each way. We used to buy a car about every 4 years and each had a commute of 20+ miles each way. I feel so much much better knowing that I’m doing my part! I’m sure the Worldwatch Institute appreciates it. :-)

    • 0 avatar
      Watch Carefully

      How many cars I own is immaterial…I’m only driving one at a time and if I drive no more than I need, then I’m doing my part, no? Now, if they want to eliminate motorsport…I must take exception to that!

  • avatar
    niky

    Truth is, less people driving cars and more people using public transport is good. Economies of scale mean less pollution and more man-miles per barrel of oil.

    The problem is: how do you convince people of this, and who decides who drives and who walks?

    Kind of unfair to those formerly un-motorized Chinese for us to tell them they don’t get a ride on the automotive gravy train we’ve all been riding for the past sixty years.

    • 0 avatar
      Freddy M

      From a purely environmental standpoint you (and the Worldwatch Institute) are probably correct. But the bigger picture is the economic repercussions.

      I’m no economist, but I’ve been in enough drunken debates with co-workers to pretend to know what I’m talking about. The auto industry is one of the key drivers of the economy. A drastic reduction in the prosperity and growth of that industry would have a dramatic ripple effect on all the industries that contribute to it.

      I’ll put my drink down now to let a real economist point out where I’m right/wrong. I have a headache.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        Well let me order you another Mojito, Freddy M, though I’m no economist, more of an exigent curmudgeon.

        You’re correct in assuming the economic repercussions to the auto industry and the industries within its sphere would be hard hit. However, I’m sure those arguments were hurled against the automobile by the Blacksmith Society and Farrier Union at the turn of the 19th Century. Eventually we have over 10 Billion screaming A-holes on this tiny planet with potentially 20 Billion cars. Therefore, it falls to pragmatic logic that mass transportation will have to become more of a norm to meet the demands of human movement. The ripple can be softened and lessened by planning for the future.

        Rant over. Get you a taxi or you taking the bus?

      • 0 avatar
        dejal1

        “However, I’m sure those arguments were hurled against the automobile by the Blacksmith Society and Farrier Union at the turn of the 19th Century.”

        My grandmother made horse + buggy whips, riding crops until the late 1970s. She was then laid off because she couldn’t make her quota. She had a bull whip, never figured out what happened to it.

        She then collected unemployment benifits at around 80 years old which always cracked me up.

      • 0 avatar
        Freddy M

        A 24 of Molson Canadian is my drink du jour when discussing all manner of economics and politics.

        But let’s not forget how much simpler and smaller scale things were back in the 19th Century as you point out. Perhaps you’re right that the economy may be resilient enough to adapt to such major changes, but let’s not forget how intrinsically linked all of the world’s economies are nowadays, and how our leaders in power are resistant to true change considering they’re in the pockets of said large industries. Too big to fail remember?

        That notwithstanding, I do feel that in their intention, the Worldwatch Institute and other groups do have noble goals. I feel it’s how they try to integrate those goals realistically into the machinations of today’s world that causes resistance.

        Or maybe I’m just reading too far into the quoted article and being a Chicken Little. Either way if you’re ever in Toronto ring me up I’ll buy you a round.

      • 0 avatar
        niky

        The transition period will be bloody, violent, and full of mohawked teenagers with nose-rings beating people senseless to steal their gasoline.

        Or maybe not. Younger generations are less and less interested in automobiles. Hopefully we can transition to a mostly electronic lifestyle by then. Teleconferencing is becoming cheaper and cheaper. Online retail is starting to pick up elsewhere in the world. And facebook rather than drive-through boutique coffee is now the drug of choice for most youngsters.

        If we’re lucky, the age of the automobile will end with a whimper. I hope we’re lucky.

        After that, we can start worrying about when the coal is going to run out.

      • 0 avatar
        01 ZX3

        The mass production of the automobile essentially allowed for the huge growth in the middle class in the 19th century. If cars are banned or their use is otherwise limited than I would imagine what’s left of the middle class here would erode away.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        Freddy, having just got back from the Sinai where I worked, lived, and yes, partied like a rock-star with some very fine Canucks, some of them even Quebecois! I will challenge you to bring me a Black Oak Nut Brown Ale or Molson Export and have the waitress bring me your finest Poutine LaBanquise. Then we’ll discuss how wrong you are….:)

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        Freddy M: ” The auto industry is one of the key drivers of the economy. A drastic reduction in the prosperity and growth of that industry would have a dramatic ripple effect on all the industries that contribute to it.”

        Yes. That was the principal reason for bailing out GM; the ripple effect from a GM collapse would cause enough collateral damage to change the recession to a depression.

        However, we now see that there seems to be remarkably little support for that action, so I can’t see anybody worrying about the future health of the auto industry.

    • 0 avatar

      The answer is obvious: the liberal elite gets to decide who’s worthy a car ride, duh. Everyone else gets the public transit.

      • 0 avatar
        icemilkcoffee

        The conservative elites prefer to raise the gas tax sky high, and let poor people fend for themselves.

      • 0 avatar
        niky

        I thought the conservative elite’s answer was always “Invade a foreign country”?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        What conservative elite is advocating for gasoline taxes? Speaking on behalf of the vast right wing conspiracy, we take offense to such an implication.

        The record shows the union backed Democrat/Communist political contingent are the ones who wish to tax everyone to death.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        “The record shows the union backed Democrat/Communist political contingent are the ones who wish to tax everyone to death.”
        Is that why taxes have gone down in the past four years (look at the share of GDP taken as tax). Also didn`t the stimulus of 2009 have around 35-40% tax cuts (AMT fix, “making work pay tax” credit etc).

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        @mike978- The main reason tax revenues have gone down as % of GDP is that so many people are unemployed and pay no income tax.

  • avatar
    Chicago Dude

    “Wait until Chinese car ownership reaches the standards of the developed world, that is one car for two people. Chinese car ownership would rise to 673 million cars, or about the same of what we now have on the road in the whole world.”

    You have to adjust that for population density. Rural and suburban people in the US own more cars per capita than those who live in the dense urban areas of the US. If you assigned the same variables to people in China, I’d bet you get far less than 673 million cars.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Most people who can afford to drive will only take public transportation when it’s either more convenient or costs less. I do think Chicago has an excellent light rail system to get from the burbs to the loop and back. Metro DC does this poorly, compare Chicago’s Metra schedules to DC’s MARC/VRE schedules. Off my wearing a suit and carrying a lunchbox soapbox.

      • 0 avatar

        No matter how much less public transit costs, if I can drive, I will. Public transit is a dehumanizing experiece that we do not need to tolerate if we can avoid it. Public transit affectionados are welcome to hobos sneezing on them, if they prefer, of course. I’m not stopping them.

      • 0 avatar
        niky

        How bad it is depends on whether the local grid is sufficient for the task. There are places with perfectly acceptable train and bus services.

        In the end, it’s an economic decision. Whether you want the convenience of an automobile or the financial freedom of not worrying about loan payments, insurance, maintenance, parking fees or fuel prices.

        We don’t generate our own electricity at home, we buy it from a bulk supplier. Why not do the same with transport? Doesn’t work for everyone, but if you can avoid driving, you’re saving quite a bit of cash.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        @ Pete Zaitcev: Public transportation is a dehumanizing experience? What a lowly opinion you must have of the poorer classes who most have no other recourse to get to your house to clean it or to the McDonald’s so you can drive up and get another grease burger cheap. In your mind there are only two types who would dare lower their brows so; Professor I. Wear Tweed and his highbrow intelligencia and a Hobo, whom for the past century was the happy tramp of the railway, but nevertheless, is riding public transportation simply to enthusiastically exchange his phlegm on your $250 Starter jacket. People do ride the bus or the train or the subway for their own reasons, just like you do in your hooptie.

        Seriously? Hobos??

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        In fairness, where in the world exactly is this dehumanizing experience taking place, Pete?

    • 0 avatar
      Felix Hoenikker

      Between the cost and inconvience of parking and the ultra congested traffic of urban driving, I have come to favor public transportation when I travel to large cities.
      I regularily visit three congested cities: NYC, Phila, and DC. Public trasportation is always my first choice for these trips. When I stay in DC, I try not to drive my car in town because parking is such a PITA around the capital. I park the car and stay in a hotel in VA within a few blocks of a metro station and use the metro for all trips into the city. It’s safe and clean.
      For trips to NYC, I take a privately owned bus line, and let the driver deal with the traffic. I sometimes use the subway there, but consider it to be little more than a breeding ground of mutants and serial killers so I tend to tend to use cabs more depending on time of day.
      Phila is still somewhat drivable if you know the alternate roads so I use public transportaion there the least – mostly to avoid paying the exhorbitant parking fees at the stadiums.
      When all is said and done, the best option is a driver who drops you off and picks you up very close to your destination, but that’s not financially viable for me.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        I know people in DC who don’t drive on a Friday and take the METRO instead. Told my boss I’d work late one Friday if he’d drop me off at the METRO. He asked me how long it would take me to get home. Me: “1/2 an hour to get home, 45 minutes to the bar”. He started cursing.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    My old dad had a saying, First time is happenstance.

    Second time is co-incidence.

    Third time is enemy action.

    This week, it has become obvious that, for one reason or another, TTAC has become co-opted by a green agenda.

    First was the articles on the Volt profitability or lack thereof.

    Next was the article saying which companies made/sold the most Green vehicles.

    Third is this piece.

    What on earth gives, TTAC editors? Why the shift to and emphasis on these green liberal agenda stories?

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Probably has something to do with that Democrat that invented the internet.

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      So discussing the environmental impact of cars is now a ‘liberal agenda’?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Was the environmental impact of cars a topic of general discussions prior to 2000? 1990? 1980?

        Until former Vice President Gore effectively founded the Church of Climatology, I don’t recall it piercing the public consciousness.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Hideous guilt and gorges of self denial that Americans can do anything right and several cups of Americans are consumer addicted pigs mixed into the editorial cake. Some of the commenters have these qualities too.
      The written reviews are good and I’d like to go drinking with the editors. It’s an entertaining web blog. My apologies to other Americans; it’s how the USA describes its citizens.

    • 0 avatar
      niky

      News is news. i suppose TTAC is supposed to ignore news and refrain from taking veiled potshots at green thinktanks because you don’t like reading about it?

    • 0 avatar

      Just because TTAC runs an article on something green doesn’t mean that that piece represents its editorial position. In fact, could be the opposite. I’m not saying it is, but here’s the simple logic: If you are anti-green (as opposed to just wanting any car news), you almost want to know waht the greenies are up to, and what they are saying, so that you are prepared to refute their arguments.

      If you want general car news, you probably want this sort of green news as well.

      If you want cheer-leading, that’s a different story.

      I don’t think TTAC has any agenda except providing a combo of important and fun car news. (But correct me if I’m wrong, Bertel.)

    • 0 avatar
      Neb

      Hahaha. Oh my.

      The site’s called the *truth* about cars, not “cosseting your views about car from the harsh glare of the outside world.”

      • 0 avatar
        Glen.H

        I always thought it was impossible for right-wing car fanboys to be wrong about anything? As a socialist I’m wrong about every thing, therefore….arrgh logic loop! (Brain melts down)

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        In my view “right” and “wrong” are open to interpretation. What is not however, is fact and fiction… if something isn’t fact then it is fiction.

  • avatar
    Adamatari

    I feel ambivalent about cars. I have owned a couple really fun cars, I like the freedom that having a car brings… But the bills are too much. Parking is a pain. Traffic sucks. Plus they pollute.

    There is such thing as “too much of a good thing”. I think we are way past that with cars. I have ridden public transit that was very nice – in Japan, in Boston, in Europe. I have ridden bikes as my main mode of transit in Japan and in Hawaii. Personally, I think the idea of everyone having a car is ultimately crazy. Car sharing is a great idea, as is making cities very bike friendly and full of public transit. For everyday errands, I don’t need a car, but it would be nice to have one to go places public transit doesn’t go or for special occasions.

    If I had to give up cars forever to keep the world healthy, I could deal with that. My desires are not the end all and be all of life on this planet – that is to say, I put life on this planet, things like coral reefs and forests, above my desire to have a car. I think we can live very well with fewer cars; in fact, better than we live today. But it won’t be the suburban fantasy, it will be something different. Maybe more walking streets like Stroget in Denmark. I’ve been there, and it was great.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t like cars. It just means I have priorities. A healthy planet comes before cars. The Worldwatch institute stating the obvious is not an attack on everything you’ve ever loved, unless you love parking, traffic jams, and commuting. I prefer being able to walk and bike to where I need to go.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    Worldwide vehicle population rising into the billions is the reason that electrification of the automobile is inevitable.


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

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India