By on February 27, 2013

Just as McDonald’s resturants successfully introduced themselves into food-conscious Europe, another American-derived invasive species could be entering and killing off the native fauna.

At a briefing for the launch of the Ford Kuga (aka our Escape), Ford’s Alex Gallagher told Just-Auto that SUV sales are far outpacing sales of D-Segment cars, or what we call mid-size cars in North America. Europe’s D-segment includes not just sedans, but also hatchback and wagon variants as well.

Over the last 5 years, sales of SUVs have more than doubled, to 250,000 units annually, eclipsing D-segment sales for the first time last month. Despite SUVs being primarily thought of as an American product, Gallagher cites the Nissan Qashqai and Juke  as the driving force behind the switch to SUVs. Last month, the Qashqai and Juke ranked 5th and 9th respectively in a top 10 list dominated by small B-segment hatchbacks. In 2012, the 6th place Qashqai outsold the 13th place Vauxhall Insignia (the top selling D-segment car) by roughly 13,000 units, and outsold the Ford Mondeo and VW Passat (the second and third place D-segment cars) by a 2:1 ratio.

While SUVs were once derided as vehicles for farmers, mobsters or over-indulged housewives (at one time being labeled “Chelsea tractors, after the tony London neighborhood) the newest crop of SUVs are more in the dreaded crossover template than anything else. Despite the accepted binary dynamic whereby wagons= good and crossovers=bad, the much maligned two-box vehicles have won high praise from both critics and consumers on the continent. Even Chris Harris went ga-ga for the Dacia Duster, praising it for its simplicity and calling it “the most significant new motorcar launched in the past decade“.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

51 Comments on “SUV Sales Outpacing Family Cars In The UK...”


  • avatar
    mike978

    Very true Derek, I know from experience that Mondeo’s, Passat’s etc are getting less common than they used to. They had already been squeezed by premium cars (BMW 3 series is a top 10 seller in the UK) and now crossovers.

  • avatar

    Sad for those of us who like cars. The Duster is the first non-car that breaks into the French top 10 in like, forever. The Duster will surely break into the British top 10.

    I already expunged my desire for a car on stilts. I had Ford Ranger. A joy when I bought it, a greater joy when I sold it. However, the wife dreams of a Duster, and when she dreams bigger she dreams of a Captiva. Meanwhile I wish for a 500. Guess which one we’ll get sooner?

    We could be aiding the SUV/CUV world dominance soon. And I use SUV/CUV interchangeably because most consumers the world over don’t know/don’t care about the difference.

    • 0 avatar
      tatracitroensaab

      I will say though, the Dacia Duster looks fantastic in metallic brown.

    • 0 avatar
      challenger2012

      I assume when you write Ford Ranger, you mean in the US, Ford Escape. I also googled Ford Ranger 2008 and tell me how different the Duster looks from it. Ford Escapes are good vehicles here. My neighbor has a 2005, about 140,000 miles on it. His 17 years old girl drives it to school. Looks good and runs good.

      • 0 avatar

        Hey Challenger2012!

        No I mean Ford Ranger. Pick up. The exact same one you had in America. Manual, 2.5 engine. I was comparing the jacked up driving dynamics of a pick up and a CUV/SUV. Yes, they’re very different and an Escape is way more comfortable than a PU, but a Fusion is more comfortable and nimble than an Escape. That’s what I was getting at.

        No knock on the Escape or Ranger. They do what they’re supposed to. Like I said, because of wife we may end up in something similar. Because of the reasons given, it wouldn’t be my choice. I decided I like cars. I’ll stick to cars as much as I can.

        • 0 avatar
          challenger2012

          M de V

          I re-read my post. It should be 2008 Escape, not Ranger. But to my point, how different are the looks between a 2008 Escape and the Duster?

          • 0 avatar

            Hey Challenger. A Duster is smaller. It’s design makes it look pretty wide, but when you see against some other car you realize how small it is. The Duster shares the doors with a Sandero, so if you’ve seen pictures you can imagine. As to the back and the rear quarter, there’s a lot of Nissan design cues there.

            The Escape is wider, taller though I don’t know how much longer. The Duster does look more like a real “jeep” than anything else. An early 00s one or a late 90s one.

            Hope it helps.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Are they private registrations? What percentage of cars in the UK are part of compensation packages these days? I’m not one of those people that think they know better than people that drive CUVs what said people should drive, but there is still going to be a fuel economy penalty for 8 inches of ground clearance and expressive styling.

    • 0 avatar

      Hey CJ!

      “I’m not one of those people that think they know better than people that drive CUVs what said people should drive”

      We agree!

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        Company cars are a much smaller part of the market than they used to be in say the 1990′s. Taxation changes have made them a lot less valuable and this will have played a part in the reduction seen for typical company cars – Insignia, Mondeo etc.

        • 0 avatar

          Hey mike978! Do you think that, because of the changes in tax policy people are being more conservative and choosing better cost-benefit cars? I mean, when you were spending the company’s money it made sense to buy that loaded Mondeo, Insignia, Passat, 3 Series. Now, that people are spending their own money they choose cheaper? Because from what I read the Insignia, Mondeo are better than ever, yet sales are worse than ever. Yeah the crisis, but don’t you think Euro makers have made these cars too pricey? I think it’s time for prices on these things to come down, though makers are loath to do that. I f they don’t, cars such as these might become history.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            Marcelo, you are certainly right that tax policy and changes to remuneration (i.e. you buy your won car after a salary bump rather than through the company directly) has led to changes in what is bought. People spending their won money either want a cheap and functional car (Dacia as an example) or they want a car that has low depreciation (the VW Golf compared to the Focus and Astra for example). There is also the move to smaller cars that are more fuel efficient because tax policy is based on CO2 emissions.
            The mid market is a dangerous place to be in right now. This has happened for larger cars – the Ford Granada and Vauxhall Omega were good sellers back in the 1980′s but then the luxury German brands same and people decided to downsize and get for equivalent money a premium car. Why buy mid market when you can get premium (especially if you don`t need the space).

  • avatar
    Nostrathomas

    Ugh, Europe, no. Change the stuff that we dislike about you (too many rules, VAT, daily protests) not the stuff that makes you great!

  • avatar
    DepreciatedDerelict

    Is that a drip pan underneath that Nissan?

  • avatar
    spreadsheet monkey

    For readers in North America: Ford Mondeo = Ford Fusion, Vauxhall Insignia = Chevy Malibu, Nissan Qashqai = Nissan Rogue (kind of).

  • avatar
    fatalexception04

    Spent last summer in Europe and saw a lot of those Nissan’s in several countries. It looks pretty good and surprised they don’t sell that here instead of the rogue. It certainly seemed a lot nicer than a rogue, and would probably do well too.

    (hopefully this comment doesn’t get removed like the last 2 for some reason.)

  • avatar
    sitting@home

    I would postulate that over the last 20 years in the UK the prevalence of diesel, the totalitarian enforcement of safety standards and speed limits, and the doubling of vehicle density have coaxed people into these rolling sitting rooms that don’t go anywhere fast, but do it in comfort.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Interesting. I suppose it could be a good idea to get away from cars that tempt you into driving quickly in such a place. Depressing as hell, though.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        You might postulate that but then how do you square it with the rise of the premium car (BMW and Audi small cars in particular) as well as the continued popularity of “sporty” versions of mainstream cars like the ST and RS Focus, Golf GTi and R etc.
        At least speed enforcement in the UK is clear, see a large yellow box, slow down, then speed up! In the US it is more depressing because a police car could be anywhere (marked or unmarked). Very few police patrols in the UK.

      • 0 avatar
        sitting@home

        @mike978. The article says that UK SUV sales are outstripping sedans, and that was what my response was about. “Sporty” and “Premium” cars may still be popular but I can’t imagine they are the bulk of the market. The number of buyers cross-shopping an SUV and a hot-hatch (the RS Focus and Golf GTI you mention) will be minimal.

        On the UK motorways you are under constant surveillance; if you are noticed going at excessive speed then the police will be waiting for you at the junction ahead. The average speed cameras can automatically catch you without ever having proof that you exceeded the speed limit, just the notion that you probably did. Give me a donut chomping cop hiding behind a billboard over that any day.

    • 0 avatar

      Son, watcha talking’ ’bout? I live in the UK right now, and the UK has generally higher speed limits than in the US and Canada (in last week’s TG they talked about people travelling 90mph/145km/h or more on the motorways regularly). Stuff gets wild once you get on the A and B roads, where you’re expected to go 50mph around the most ridiculous blind/hedged curves and narrow roadways (often too narrow for two cars). Trust me when I say that there is a much greater purpose to have a fun, sharp handling car in the UK than there is to have a moving couch. Add in the cost of fuel (not *that* much more expensive than Canada) and the temptation is to get something smaller with a better power/weight ratio, rationally, not larger and heavier. There may be a way of explaining the CUV craze in the UK, but the two factors are not it, from what I can tell.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        What constitutes not that much more expensive? I’m seeing the UK at $8.23 Canadian a gallon compared to $5.44 a gallon Canadian in Canada. 51% more expensive is substantial in my book. It’s also 133% more expensive than gasoline is in the US.

        I can’t find any report that doesn’t say plans to raise UK motorway speed limits to 80 mph haven’t been derailed by the nanny-state. That leaves the limit at 70 mph with 20 mph limits on some surface streets. In the US, freeway speed limits in the majority of states are 70 or 75 mph with 2 states allowing 80 mph and one having an 85 mph toll road. Americans have been profligate speeders ever since the ridiculous double nickel was introduced. California is a 70 mph state, but traffic on many of our freeways moves much faster. We also don’t have many places where 20 mph is required. We parallel park at 25 mph here. I’ve seen visiting Brits come to the realization that their stereotypes about US road speeds are pure fantasy.

        • 0 avatar

          Upon re-assessment the fuel prices differences are fairly large, so your point there is true.

          As for the speeding, relating speed limits is helpful to a certain degree but not the full story. The motorways are 70mph, and most of the A and B roads are 50 or so. Despite the North American paranoia involving the (albeit annoying) speed cameras, people don’t actually comply to the 70mph speed limit much, they go quite a bit faster (80 and up no sweat). The 20MPH limit happens rarely once you get out of the urban areas, and typically the roads are curvy enough that you can’t actually maintain the maximum much anyway.

          That’s the flaw in just analyzing speed limits without looking and geography or actual habits. Have a look at Canada’s 400-series highways. The speed is marked 100km/h, which would say to someone outside the country that they’re very slow. The reality is that everyone goes 120-135km/h on them. Oddly, various experiences seem to be that the US has more heavily policed highways and (at least in states such as NY) less flexibility on speed limits, where everybody stays within 5MPH of the limit. So, again, the US is not the comparative speed-loving country you seem think it is, and the speeds in the UK are not as harshly enforced as many believe them to be.

          Once again, high fuel costs are confirmed but inability to go fast is not, meaning the OPs arguments (seemingly made to complain about gov’t policy more than anything) *still* doesn’t hold much water as an honest explanation for the CUV craze, which was my original critique.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            Speeding is more prevalent in the UK because there are very few police car patrols and speed cameras are very visible. The average speed cameras are extremely annoying but from my experience they are limited to roadworks (such as on the M25 between Heathrow and the M1).
            In my part of North Carolina the speed limit on a 2 lane road is typically 65 and we have an unwritten convention that 10mph over is acceptable. Very few people seem to go 80 or higher. When I was in the UK 80-90mph was perfectly common.

  • avatar

    A lot of these thigns they call SUVs look like short wagons to me including the Dacia Duster and the Nissan in the photo. Is there actually any working definition that clearly distinguishes wagons from SUVs from CUVs?

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      CUVs are car based. SUVs are truck based or built on dedicated platforms. Another good dividing line is the availability of a dual range transfer case. Chances are that if it has a low range for off roading and manner for locking the axle speeds to each other, it is an SUV instead of a CUV.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        I don’t think this is the case, actually. I’m not sure there is any formal definition of what is a truck and what is a car.

        As an example, the 1st-gen Ford Explorer (which I owned) was identical to the Ranger (which I also owned) from the B-pillar forward, and built on the same platform. The current Explorer (still called an SUV) is built on the Taurus (unibody) platform.

        In North America, minivans are classified as trucks, although they are all built on car platforms. Originally, I believe this was so the manufacturers could avoid having to meet all the safety and emiissions standards that applied to cars.

        CUV vs SUV is, I suspect, simply a marketing distinction based on size (actual or perceived) and the whim of the manufacturer

        • 0 avatar
          mike978

          ect – CJ’s working definition is one I have seen before and seems spot-on.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            I’m not sure why it is worth arguing against the distinction, unless one is actively involved in marketing something as something it is not. There is some hair splitting to be done involving some models, but basically CUVs came into existence when someone first thought to disguise a car as an SUV. It may have been Toyota with the RAV4. Early SUVs like the Scout, Wagoneer, Bronco, and Range Rover were essentially utility vehicles with enough refinement and weather protection to be daily driven by someone so inclined. The S10 Blazer and Bronco II were smaller versions of the same idea. The XJ Cherokee added four doors and attracted a new audience. Eventually someone figured out that new audience didn’t care about old definitions of utility. Snow plowing and off roading require different capabilities than price club shopping and child seat installation do. CUVs are more efficient at the latter and generally worthless at the former. SUVs have the potential to do it all at greater cost for mechanicals and while consuming more fuel.

            Explorers were SUVs, even if they were some of the least capable SUVs. Today, they’re garden variety CUVs. They’re not even at the extreme end of CUV capability, being pretty much restyled Taurus wagons. The Pathfinder recently went through a similar transformation. Most consumers only need CUVs, but they seem to like associations with SUVs. Putting SUV nameplates on CUVs has been pretty successful for Ford and Nissan. We’ll see how it works out for the Cherokee. Any way I look at it, the name doesn’t make the product something it no longer is.

            There are some cars where the distinctions are tougher. The first Mercedes ML had a dedicated platform, but its lack of capabilities at SUV things made it a CUV in operation. All BMW X series vehicles are dictionary CUVs, with their car based platforms and road oriented level of ruggedness. The Touareg is an SUV in my opinion. It has a dedicated platform and is available with SUV capabilities is some markets. The US one has lost these capabilities, but does that make it a CUV? It won’t matter to the people that buy them.

            There are still a few real SUVs. Nissan’s Xterra, Ford’s Expedition, Toyota’s 4Runner, Sequoia, and Land Cruiser. The Dodge Durango and Jeep GC are now ML based, and I can’t find a low range transfer case for the Durango. Can the Durango be a CUV while the platform-sharing JGC is an SUV? That’s about the only example I can think of where my working definition of SUV/CUV distinction has issues.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            As a matter of curiosity, then, what distinguishes a “car” from a “truck”? As I understand it, manufacturers are free to classify what they build as either one or the other, almost by whim.

            Cars used to be body-on-frame, but have moved to unibody construction (are there any body-on-frame cars still in the market?). That left traditional trucks as body-on-frame vehicles, but if SUVs like the Explorer and Grand Cherokee are marketed as trucks, does that distinction matter?

            It seems to me that carmakers call their wares whatever they think will maximize sales, which suggests that all of these labels are functionally meaningless.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            They aren’t functionally meaningless when having a discussion with someone who knows what you’re talking about. They’re also not functionally meaningless if you want a vehicle to tow your race car to the track occasionally, or if you have a rural driveway to plow.

            The definition of truck platform isn’t as important as the definition of a car platform. There are too many definitions of truck in the US, depending on which government agency you’re dealing with for instance. Lifted cars meet the legal definition of a truck in some instances. Still, cars are cars. Is a Volvo S80 a car? Yes. Is anything based on a Volvo S80 based on a car? Yes. Is the Explorer based on a Volvo S80? Yes. Ergo, it is car based. Is the Honda Civic a car? Yes. Is the CR-V based on the Civic? Yes. Is the CR-V car based? This has the potential to help you understand why anything based on a BMW 3 series, Toyota Camry, BMW 5-series, Nissan Altima, Chevy Malibu, Hyundai Sonata, VW Golf, Audi A4, etc…is car based and not an SUV. A Ford Expedition is based on an F150, making it an SUV. An XJ Cherokee, with its unique unit-body and low range transfer case was an SUV with a dedicated platform. I’m not sure I get the point of denying that there are distinctions for people that spend their time discussing cars with other people that know about cars.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            Fair enough. I’m not an engineer, or trained in a technical field. What I know of the mechanical aspect of cars came from owning an Austin-Healy Sprite as a student, and discovering I had a choice between (i) abject poverty, while usually having to take the bus, and (ii)learning how (aided by a shop manual and a mechanically-oriented brother-in-law) to do my own servicing and basic repair/replacement jobs.

            If there is a clear line between what is a car and what is a truck, I don’t know what that is. Which is why I asked the question.

            And to my point, Ford call the Explorer and the Escape, SUVs. Chrysler calls the Durango an SUV. To Hyundai, the Santa Fe is an SUV and the Tucson is a CUV. Toyota calls the RAV-4 a compact SUV. In the marketplace, there seems to be no meaningful distinction between CUV and (relatively) small SUV.

            I am reminded of Justice Potter Stewart’s statement that he would not try to define what what hard-core pornography is, “and perhaps…could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it”.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          You’re right about our legal definitions.

          But, having learned to drive 15 years ago after the era of unibody vehicles was well underway, I tend to consider any body-on-frame vehicle (from the Panther through commercial vehicles) to be a truck.

          Unibody vehicles can fall into just about any other category.

    • 0 avatar

      Hey David Holzman,

      CJ is right. From a market point of view though it doesn’t matter. CUVs win cause they’re cheaper and in the ROW typically smaller than a traditional SUV. In essence, these CUVs are just cars on stilts. EcoSport is nothing but a Fiesta underneath, Duster is nothing but a Logan. But it gives the driver the sensation they’re driving a SUV. That’s what sells them.

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        CUVs, depending on how large they are, are either wagons or hatches on stilts.

        • 0 avatar
          Kevin Jaeger

          I’m not one to be telling people what they should drive either, but I admit to being mystified by the CUV/SUV craze. The American market has clearly rejected traditional hatchbacks and wagons. It must have taken some real b*lls for the first car designer to suggest putting a lift kit under a regular hatch or wagon. It’s the sort of thing you’d see as a novelty vehicle at car shows.

          And yet there they are on our roads by the millions. Jacked up AWD hatchbacks shuffling from suburban houses to shopping malls in a market that refuses hatchbacks. Even in flat areas in the south where one has to wonder what made them think they needed AWD.

    • 0 avatar
      Truckducken

      Pet peeve, maybe not 100% on topic: why are SUV’s called SUV’s? I get the U and the V, but the S is a real stretch (unless it really stands for Shopping). How about we start calling the whole lot UV’s?

      • 0 avatar

        Agreed! But now with the likes of Duster, EcoSport, new Cherokee, Honda Urban something-or-other we need a new name. As the press call these inBrazil urban SUVs, I propose U-SUV (*tm*). Pls get in touch with me to pay me my royalties.

        I suggest pronuncing it you-soov. Nice ring, no?

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        If you look at the first SUVs, the name made a bit more sense. They weren’t alternatives to sports cars, but they were vehicles for sportsmen. Early Scouts, Broncos, and Wagoneers were well suited for hunting, fishing, camping, carrying canoes to remote rivers, and other outdoor activities. They were distinguished from Utility Vehicles like pickups, Carryall Suburbans, and Travelalls by not having as much utility. There was no real reason to mess with the term until the vehicles morphed into station wagons that had no business going off road.

  • avatar
    highrpm

    These are all OK but not very interesting.

    You know what is interesting? Those Toyota and Nissan vans that you can get in Mexico. I don’t remember the name but they have very little front overhang and come with a manual trans.

    • 0 avatar
      Spartan

      I’ve driven many vans like that, particularly the Toyota Hi-Ace when I was deployed. There’s nothing interesting about them. They’re loud inside, low on power and not very comfortable at all.

      I think this is a case of you wanting something they can’t have since you can’t get it here.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Is McDonalds really a restaurant? I see no sign of waiting staff at the tables, and a permeating aura of a cheap cafeteria serving mediocre food in an overlit ambience. Rah, rah.

    Just as the first Ford Cortina GT debased the meaning of Grand Turismo, McDonalds debased the meaning of restaurant.

    With the UK self-admittedly leading the way in Europe for obesity and keeping up well with North America in that regard, the resulting demographic shift to folks unable to bend down to pick up a sov, means that the chance to wobble sideways into a high vehicle has high desirability. Once enthroned, hey you’re King of the Road again.

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    This is not surprising to me anyway. The average FWD midsize is utterly souless and the most common one (the Camry) is driven by 60 something. The only thing good about it is that they drive marginally better then a Prius.

    If you are going to settle on something souless – why not get something with some utility. The CUV can handle inclement weather a bit better, has more storage, provides the better visibility women like, and looks better then a economy car (which is pretty much what they are).

    Yes they don’t drive as nice as an Accord. But all FWD automatic vehicles drive fairly awful anyway.. I’d bet even in Europe plenty of these things are autos.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      Are the Fusion and Mazda 6 soul-less? Not all mid-size cars are the same.

      • 0 avatar

        If by inclement weather you mean snow maybe yes, but in the rain (most of UK) that just isn’t true. A car on stilts will never handle better than a car with a lower center of gravity in the rain.

        Agree with you mike978. There are cars and cars.

        • 0 avatar
          CelticPete

          It’s amazing how many ‘enthusiasts’ are swayed by stiff shocks and different dampening rates.

          Camry FWD. Macpherson Strut front with Mac Macpherson rear(multi-link) with dual stabilizer bars. EPS steering. Disk/Disk brakes. 6 speed auto

          3200 lbs. With roughly 60/40 weight split. Around 178hp/170lbs torque

          Mazda 6. About 3200lbs. About 185/180 hp. FWD. Roughly 60/40 weight split. 6 speed auto. Macpherson strut front and multilink rear.. (with stablizer bars).

          I suppose one is really ‘soulful’ and fun to drive whereas the other one is souless eh?

          Cars in this segement are EXTREMELY close..the idea that the Mazda is a blast of fun and the Camry is dull as dishwasher
          sounds like marketing fluff. None of them are an Ariel Atom or even a Mustang.

          I have rented a Camry. But it drives OKAY. Its a pretty dull appliance. Cars in this segement just aren’t fun enough to outweigh the utility of an SUV for most drivers – especially with the automatics.

          I haven’t yet driven a Mazda 6 but call me skeptical about its awesome sportiness. Seems an awful lot like a Camry spec wise.

  • avatar
    Junebug

    Almost made it through all these comments without the Camry hate, WTF is it about this car that has the C&D and MT boys all nit-picking it to death after first saying it’s selling more than anything else in it’s class? It’s boring, bland, not what it use to be blah blah.. MT’s review said it was so quiet while C&D had rattles and sqeaks, and forgot which said that the dash reflects into the windshield (blatant lie) and the silver trim is easily scratched with a fingernail (another lie). Let me tell you, I was looking for a car in this class and I considered a few, here are the cars and reasons:
    Fuson – too many issues, not convinced that a 1.6 was right for this and my Taurus had become a POS so maybe I was tainted in judgement
    Mazda 6 – not a bad car, and my daughter’s 3 has been flawless, too bad the dealer wouldn’t return emails
    Chevy -? no thanks, burned that bridge years ago
    Nissan Altima – I had a 1994 and loved it, then I read page after page of blistering rage against this car on Edmunds Consumer reviews – ah, no thanks
    Honda Accord, I had a 2008 and it was ok, nothing great and being a part time detailer, I got tired of trying to keep that soft paint from being scratched, and, I just didn’t like the control lay-out that much.
    That leaves Toyota Camry, ok – looks are subjective, I like it and you didn’t send me any cash so shut up, it drives fine, I get 31.4 mpg, it’s a nice smooth ride but has plenty of git up if needed and the fit and finish are as good or better than anything else in it’s price range. Oh – and a drove a GTI from 2008 to 2012 so I know all about the “sporty ride/handling etc” and honestly, unless you just like driving like you’re a teenager, the only advantage of the GTI is the hatch. I’m 53, not 60 but I’ll probably still have the Camry when I reach 60 – God willing and such.


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
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India