By on January 13, 2016

jeepgladiatorconcept

If there was any confusion about Chrysler’s plans to build a pickup variant of the Wrangler, something for which Jeep fans and car enthusiasts in general have clamored, Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne cleared it up at a press conference at the 2016 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

Marchionne unequivocally stated the automaker will be making a Jeep with a bed, probably by early 2018.

Jeep last sold a pickup truck, the Comanche variant of the XJ Cherokee, in 1992. The last time they sold a CJ based pickup was in 1986, with the CJ-8 Scrambler.

After 69 months in a row of sales growth in the United States and achieving the top position in market share in Canada, Marchionne was effusive in his praise of FCA’s North American employees.

“I’m proud what the kids have done. I think they have done a phenomenal job,” he said.

He was particularly complimentary about FCA’s Toledo UAW members.

“I haven’t even asked them, and they’ve offered,” using that as an example of the state of labor relations in the United States.

Toledo is home of the Wrangler. The Jeep assembly plant there is an important part of that region’s economy. Jerry Anderson of WTOL asked him about new vehicles to replace Cherokee production that is slated to moved out of Toledo, and specifically about a Wrangler pickup truck.

Marchionne made it clear that vehicle will indeed be made.

I’ll confirm it for you. We will build a Wrangler pickup, shortly after the launch of the Wrangler, of the new Wrangler which should be operational sometime by the end of next year. And just broadly, the car is done, the car is designed and it’s been engineered. So we just need to get off our butts and start producing it.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

80 Comments on “Marchionne: “We Will Build a Wrangler Pickup”...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Finally a “yes we can” I can get behind.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I think many people will as well.

      I forwarded this article to my best friend and he told me that if it is priced within reason, he may sell his 1993 S10 ExtCab 4.3L and buy one of these to round out his stable of 2012 Grand Cherokee Laredo 4×4 and 2015 Avalon.

      This is the guy who owned the 1989 Camry V6 I’m driving now.

      But I think it will be like krhodes1 wrote, “I predict epic levels of added dealer greed initially.”

      Maybe Sergio bought the AEV company. Their website is no longer up.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I’m sure it won’t be priced within reason initially.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          A friend who sells Jeep in CO speculated it will be priced starting at ~$32K, but that will include a PentaStar 3.6L and that magnificent SelecTrac II 4×4 system. No idea what the standard tranny will be, manual or automatic.

          The autoblogosphere is abuzz with this news but Jeep dealers are even more excited at the prospect of being able to sell a ready-made Wrangler Trucklet.

          It used to be that Jeep dealers would sell Wranglers to AEV to fabricate custom conversions, but now there is the possibility of more profit coming the dealer’s way, instead of the extra money going to AEV.

          I won’t be buying one but there will be plenty of others who will take sales past the break-even point.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Sounds incredibly reasonable actually, too good to be true. The Jeep starts at 24 and once you start adding basic things it jumps to 27 quickly with most running somewhere between 27 and 30. So if you’re getting Sahara features plus a truck bed for just a bit more, it sounds like a home run.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Just for grins….

            http://www.perkinsmotors.com/inventory/view/Model/Wrangler%20Unlimited/New/Trims/Sahara/SortBy0/

            Note the discounts too. If you really want a hair-raising experience, do a search on the Wrangler Unlimited. That’ll make your hair grow.

            I don’t believe that the $32K includes Sahara features. If true, it should be the Base model to which trim levels can be added, just as it is now.

  • avatar

    Give me a HELLCAT with PHEV technology like in the new Chrysler minivan so I can get 20 MPG and I’ll be very happy!

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Yes. If they look like the one in the picture, and they have a Rubi version, I’m gonna buy me one.

  • avatar
    JMII

    Begun the mid-size wars have.

    Ironically just as bottom falls out of oil thus making gas super cheap the manufactures start making (and selling?) reasonably sized trucks.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s not like cheap oil makes the full-sizers any easier to park, you know.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        This is also true. Space is never an issue in my neck of the woods, but some buyers still like something that isn’t 78″ wide.

        • 0 avatar
          Chicago Dude

          If a soccer mom in an Odyssey can park a 79″ wide minivan with 3 screaming kids inside, so can a real man. I think.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            Speaking as someone who currently owns a minivan and who has owned 3 pickup trucks (1 compact, 1 Ranger, 1 F-150) , it’s not the width, it’s the length. The way the sight lines work on a pickup truck doesn’t help anything either.

            Longer vehicles are more work to maneuver into a tight parking spot. I’m more than qualified to do it, the question is whether I want to put forth the effort every day for however many years I own that vehicle.

            Our Sienna is a medium-effort vehicle to park. The sightlines are good, but it’s sometimes easier to back it into the spot with the door open than it is to get it straight in the spot.

            The F-150 I used to own was a high-effort vehicle to park. When I had to park it in the parking deck near my office (at the time) I was able to put it right where I wanted it, but it was like docking a [email protected] barge.

            Our Prius is a no-effort vehicle to park. In the same parking garage where I have to dock the F-150, or back the van into the spot, you just drive the Prius in and get out.

            So, the question isn’t whether a real man can park it — I can do that. The questions is whether I’ll pay tens of thousands of dollars to put up with *more* BS on a daily basis.

            I’ve gotten a lot of utility out of the pickup trucks I’ve owned. But that utility comes at a cost, both in terms of dollars and in terms of hassle. If you only drive in a rural environment, the hassles of driving a pickup are less. But I touch suburban, urban, and interstate-highway environments pretty regularly. I grew up in a rural environment, but don’t spend much time there now. So, my vehicles need to be adapted to the environment. A smaller truck (especially a versatile and useful one) might just give me access to that 4’x8′ open bed (with the tailgate down) that can be so incredibly useful.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        Trust me I get it, the reason I own a Dodge Dakota is because you can actually park it… in the garage.

        Since my Dakota is an older V8 it gets worst mileage then a modern full-sized truck. My buying decision on the Dakota back in 2002 was purely based on size along with power. Before that I had a V6 Ranger Splash (step-side bed, fun little thing) that was perfect size-wise, but struggled to tow my boat. I had to push that little truck so hard it basically got V8 mileage anyway, so I just went ahead and got the V8 I needed, but in the smallest package I could. Technically the vehicle was larger due to the Quad Cab, but it has a short bed – this doesn’t bother me because when I need more room I just leave the tailgate down.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Thumbs up, JMII. I’m glad to see more proof that not everybody likes full-sized pickup trucks. Yes, I do agree they need “enough” power to do the job, but they don’t have to be diesel or gasser monsters that come too close to infringing on class 4 and above capability. A more compact truck could easily replace the half-ton full sizer today with power and load, leaving the full-size segment to ¾-ton and larger trucks.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    I predict epic levels of added dealer greed initially. And more power to them if they can get it.

  • avatar
    319583076

    *stifles internal conflict*

  • avatar
    callmeishmael

    I love/hate Jeeps. Now to stick with waiting for these pickups to appear on the used car market.

  • avatar
    zip89105

    Why? FCA would be better off building a better 200 or Dart. FCA doesn’t need a Chrysler truck, Dodge truck, Jeep truck, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Often, people who choose a Jeep product buy more than one Jeep product. There are people in my area who own a Grand Wagoneer from way back when, as well as a current Grand Cherokee and sometimes even a Wrangler of yore.

      You would have to be a fan to understand. Jeep is not only a brand. It is a lifestyle.

      A Wrangler Trucklet would fit in nicely in the line-up for the Jeep crowd. But Jeep could drop the Compass, Liberty and Patriot since they brought the Renegade to market.

      I no longer own any Jeep products. Have gone Toyota 24/7/366.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        The Liberty was dropped way back in 2012.

        The Compass and Patriot are about to be replaced by a single budget compact CUV (which I think should be called the Compatriot), since the Cherokee is too expensive and the Renegade too small to be a true replacement.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Maybe the Cherokee shouldn’t be so expensive since it filled the Liberty void.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I LOVED the 2002 to 2005 (?) Jeep Liberty.

            Yeah, it was a pig on gas with the 3.7 liter, but I drove my cousin’s 2003 for a month and 1/2 during one of the worst winters we had in Michigan, and it was rock solid chassis/body wise, unstoppable in all conditions (low range transfer case + 4×4 + proper tires)0p, and was also quiet inside and drove 10x better on pavement than the Wrangler.

            The Liberty was 80% as capable as the Wrangler, but 300% more refined in everday driving.

            …one of the most underrated, underappreciated vehicles of the last 15 years, IMO.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          The Liberty was dropped but there are still a few brand new ones around, unsold.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      It’s not an either/or.

      Look at what the Jeep brand is doing for FCA’s coffers. People love Jeep and having a small pick-up in the mix is a smart move and most likely profitable move.

      In fact, FCA should take a good hard look at additional Jeep products it can add to the mix. Recent concepts have been met with enthusiasm. I, for one, wouldn’t mind parking an FC in the garage.

      And you’re right. Some resources and effort should be made to improve the Dart and 200.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Dart and most likely 200 are compliance cars. I wonder if either program is even profitable, both sink like stones in the wholesale market and depending on leasing programs someone might be taking a bath.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Could you get a Dakota buyer into a Jeep truck?

      Could you get a Jeep buyer into a Dakota?

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the market research points to the former.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Probably cheaper to make a Jeep pickup then actually release a new Ram 1500.
    FCA keeps treading water with rehashed old platforms.

    Jeep Wranglers are cheap to build and are quite overpriced for what you get. Put a box on it and keep the gravy train going.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    If it’s anything like the Gladiator concept, I’m going to be all over it.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “…I’m going to be all over it.”

      A *used* one, that is. Like too many that promise they’ll be driving one, you’re in for some real *sticker shock* and a dealer that won’t budge on it.

      The fanboys will race to the showroom to see them, drooling and putting finger prints all over them, but when comes time to put their money where their mouth is, suddenly they all get “T-Rex Syndrome”… Their hands can no longer reach their wallets!

      Although you may still push through and buy one *new*, this isn’t about YOU. When it comes to low volume niche vehicles with insane resale value, most that are in love with them will wait for a clean used one.

      So when hair dressers are done with them, having never gone off road, we’ll be front and center. Excellent!

      Fleet sales are kind of missing from the equation. That’s not good for the bottom line, when it comes to pickups

      Such niche, specialty vehicles aren’t a long term, sustainable business case. So enjoy them while you can. This is just for show, not unlike the Prowler.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        You can’t really buy a current Wrangler used, the math doesn’t line up. This too will be one of those products you have to buy new.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          So if all the Vulpii and I choose not to get one new, for obvious overpriced and or price gouging reasons, we can never have one?? Or when can we finally get a 2018 of these?

          2050???

          Will we still be ALIVE????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Say what?

            I might remind you, DM, that I purchased my ’08 model in ’07. Now, how could I have done that if I don’t buy new, hmmmm?

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    What’s to not like?

    removable top? check (hopefully)
    6 MT? Check
    Fits in the garage? check
    Awesome off road performance? Check
    reasonable on gas? Check
    Will it have resale value for days? Check.

    This will be a home run. Much like the Wrangler 4 door has been a home run.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      On road handling and performance and FE. Even our 2.8 VM diesel Wranglers here in Australia are not great on diesel. The Pentastar Wranglers are using over 14 litres per hundred kilometres, combined.

      Remember most will never see anything rougher than the shoulder.

      Even if you are an avid off roader you will still drive 90% of your time on the blacktop.

      Like the Raptor these are mainly a image product, “hey, look at me, I live in an inner city suburb and I’m a real outdoorsy type. Doesn’t the Wrangler fit in well with my Ray Bans”.

      But, again, like the Raptor is does have some great off road creed (with a lot less reliability), but most would never come close to using this capabiliy.

      • 0 avatar

        Oh pulease. My 3.8L uses less than 13L/100km in everyday driving and Pentastar is more economical than that.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Pete,
          Just Google some Australian Wrangler reviews. The supposed FE is rated at 11.9l per 100km.

          They seem to be a lot thirstier.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            “Google some Australian Wrangler reviews. (…) They seem to be a lot thirstier”

            In reviews, or in real life? The gas Wrangler is rated at 13.1 l/100km by the EPA (18 MPG US). That seems about right.

            Most reviewers do performance runs and off-road runs, both of which aren’t great for gas mileage. As you say, most owners spend 90% of their time on paved roads. Wrangler drivers don’t seem to be as obsessed with the stop-light dragstrip as others are (pickup drivers, for instance).

            Also, I still don’t know why you’ve decided that Wranglers are unreliable. You never provide any data, and they’ve proven reliable and long-lived in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            heavy handle,
            Even the 13 or so you claimed is not good. The best I have seen during testing, was 13.8.

            The Wrangler is not a large vehicle. It is using around 25%-30% more fuel than an equivalent SUV that even weigh a couple hundred kilo’s less.

            Since most are chosen as an accessory to drive to work everyday, this doesn’t make much sense.

            I do believe they are great off road. My comment is directed towards the ones who buy them to look good in.

            Are these a practical choice? They handle like sh!t, use excessive fuel and have terrible ride qualities.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            “They handle like sh!t, use excessive fuel and have terrible ride qualities.”

            So, no different from a 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Prado, Patrol, Defender etc.

            I’ve ridden in all of these, and they are more alike than they are different. What gets me is when people make them even worse by adding “mudder” tires and lift kits.

            All of these companies offer more luxurious rides, so it’s obviously a conscious buying decision. Some buyers just have different needs, priorities and tastes than you (or I) do. No need to slag a truck that you are not in the market for.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Do you mean to say “cred”?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          No, creed.

          What is cred? Is this a colour of some sort?

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I only mention this because I think I saw “creed” in a comment yesterday, but only today did I realize it wasn’t a typo.

            “Cred” is short for credibility. Saying something has “off-road cred” is saying it is very good off-road.

            “Creed” is a statement of belief, usually religious.

            Unless “creed” has a second meaning in Australian slang, in which case, I defer to your knowledge. My experience with Australian mannerisms begins and ends with Monty Python’s Bruces sketch.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Drzhivago138 – “creed”

            “a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.”

            That word does rather effectively explain Big Al’s pickup truck view point.

            @Big Al – “cred” – informal slang for “street cred” or “street credibility” or just plain “credibility”.

            I do prefer your choice of the word “creed”. Drzhivago138 being the nice guy that he is was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Yes, Creed is based not on religion, but systems of belief. Religion is a system of belief, if you are into this sort of nonsense.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Big Al – just trying to make sense of what you post……….

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    First, it’s good to “hear” some concrete information regarding the Wrangler pickup. But, I’ll believe it when I see it. I have just done a rudimentary check on Google Images for 2017 Wrangler Pickup and came up with nothing, even for the Wrangler I came up with nothing.

    Second, I do believe if FCA will need to refine the Wrangler to the point where it will lose much of the appeal it has gained in the past. It will need to be far more aerodynamic, much better ride, essentially much more refined in order to compete with other pickups.

    FCA’s best bet is to produce a diesel global variant of the existing Wrangler platform. This will be easy, just stretch the four door Wrangler chassis 12″.

    Make it in Thailand or China and sell it for half the price of a 70 odd Series pickup. Even the Chinese can build a reliable tractor come 4×4.

    It will be interesting to see what FCA/Jeep come up with.

  • avatar

    Perhaps you didn’t find any 2017 images because the new Wrangler and the pickup version are 2018 models?

  • avatar
    Willem Huber

    So many historical introductions are going to be made soon. It is amazing! Ford is introducing the Bronco, Jeep has confirmed a pickup, and I cannot wait to see what is next! Maybe a new International Scout?-(probably won’t happen.)

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    No thanks. If I ever buy another PU again it will most likely be a Colorado w/baby dirtymax. Remember real trucks burn diesel fuel! At least that’s what a buddy used to tell me.

  • avatar
    daniel g.

    Check and compare Fiat Toro, it’s made in brazil by fiat brand new, maybe is the base for the jeep pick-up. Hey, they sale the fiat freemont.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      The Fiat Toro (or a Jeep or Ram-branded variant) would make a great lower-cost competitor to the Hyundai Santa Cruz (which is apparently getting closer to becoming a surety), IMO.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    What an excellent press conference; Mr Muller of VW could learn a lot from Sergio.

    I appreciated his honesty about the cost of meeting the 2025 CAFE targets. Reading between the lines, it looks like FCA is trying to delay spending the money on the required technology so they can maximize profits today.

    As for the Wrangler Pickup – it’ll crush the Honda Ridgeline 2.0 if it comes with full Jeep pedigree.

    Note to Sergio: PLEASE, PLEASE, do NOT put the ZF 9-speed automatic in the Wrangler – ever.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Wrangler pickup and Ridgeline are at opposite ends of the spectrum, totally incomparable. We could also say the Ridgeline will crush the Wrangler in on-road manners and NVH.

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        Agreed. It depends on your perspective. The Wrangler truck will probably make a lot of the people that buy them very happy. It will otherwise be a pretty terrible truck for the everyman due to packaging inefficiency, NHV, payload (likely), reliability, and cost. (Let’s not kid ourselves, this thing will be $10k more than a similarly equipped Ridgeline because of the Wrangler tax… though it *should* have the good Wrangler resale.)

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Drzhivago138,
        They might be at opposite ends of the spectrum, but they will be used for the same exact purposes.

        The biggest difference is the person who buys them. A Ridgeline buyer is after a comfortable urban hauler to enhance his lifestyle and the Wrangler buyer will be after a lifestyle enhancer that makes them look good at the expense of comfort.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      ” PLEASE, PLEASE, do NOT put the ZF 9-speed automatic in the Wrangler – ever.”

      It’s RWD based 4WD, so that’s not gonna happen. 8 speed, yes.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      “Note to Sergio: PLEASE, PLEASE, do NOT put the ZF 9-speed automatic in the Wrangler – ever.”

      It’s a transmission for transverse applications. If the Wrangler goes to a transverse platform the transmission choice will be the least of its issues.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Time to dump CAFE. It is an abomination. It is not a commandment from God. We created it and we should kill it.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Right, because having more efficient and powerful cars is so terrible.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Dr Z, efficient and powerful cars are created and sold all over the world. CAFE does not create them. People freely choose to buy them, so companies make them. Tech marches on. Computers get faster and smaller. Is that because of CAFE? The Japanese originally crushed the US companies in the 70’s by importing efficient cars. Americans gobbled them up, and still do. No CAFE mandates required. CAFE should be put to death and the army of government meddlers who enforce this crap should look for productive jobs.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Who said CAFE actively created the cars? All it does is create a more advantageous environment for higher efficiency.

            Do you know when CAFE was established?

            “This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock, powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
            At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
            After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building fire codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
            I then log on to the Internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, and post on thetruthaboutcars.com about how CAFE is bad because the government can’t do anything right.”

          • 0 avatar
            dont.fit.in.cars

            Rational optimist. Well done.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            You repeated yourself and then changed the subject.

          • 0 avatar
            319583076

            For the sake of this discussion: most people are innumerate and probably far fewer people understand the implications of CAFE, however, TTAC commenters comprise a select group.

            That said, the upside of CAFE is that it encourages improvements to fuel economy for the least economical vehicles because the fleet-average is not a simple average of individual vehicle fuel economies.

            The downside of CAFE is that for each additional doubling in fleet fuel economy, the real quantity of fuel saved is cut by half. i.e. – CAFE provides diminishing returns.

            In my opinion, the focus on increasing efficiency of our least efficient vehicles is a benefit that outweighs the long-term result of diminishing returns. Thus, CAFE is a benefit. The math is objective and rather elementary.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s fair to point out that the marketplace starts demanding better fuel economy when fuel prices increase.

            The first version of CAFE, with its focus on fleet averages, should have theoretically encouraged automakers to raise the price of gas guzzlers — the regulations should have served as a sort of quota system — but that didn’t seem to happen.

            The latest version with its footprint standards should encourage technological improvements. Judging from what’s happening with the latest tech, that seems to be working. But whether that reduces overall fuel consumption isn’t clear — if consumers respond to higher MPG ratings by driving more, then the whole thing may be a wash.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    This is actually dumber than a sports car.

    What’s the point of loading a pickup bed if you’re going to go off-road and bounce everything right back out of it?

    How about just a FWD Patriot pickup sans all the stupid macho? That would be way cool.

  • avatar
    Opus

    Finally there will be something to replace the dearly missed H2T.
    (/sarcasm)

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Are you implying that the Wrangler pickup will have a tiny bed? Because we’re almost 100% certain it’ll be ext cab/6′ bed and crew cab/5′ bed on a longer WB than the standard Wrangler or Unlimited.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    I’ll bet a lot of Ohioans (some of whom may be related to me through my mom) who love the Wrangler but need a pickup bed are licking their chops at this news.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Alex L. Dykes, United States
  • Kamil Kaluski, United States
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States

Get No-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners Automotive News in your Facebook Feed!

Already Liked