By on January 10, 2017

2014-Jeep-Cherokee-009

After claiming that the upcoming Jeep Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer SUVs would use a variant of the next-generation Grand Cherokee’s unibody platform, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has changed its mind.

Speaking at the North American International Auto Show, FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne said the top-end SUVs will instead adopt body-on frame architecture. The change tosses the vehicles’ lofty predicted price ceiling — $140,000, according to Jeep boss Mike Manley — in the trash heap.

Both models are bound for FCA’s aging Warren truck plant, which will receive a much-needed cash injection. Describing Warren as being “in dire need of a substantial overhaul,” Marchionne claimed that a portion of the automaker’s $1 billion will help modernize and retool the plant after Ram 1500 production departs for Sterling Heights.

Since the word “Wagoneer” first left the lips of FCA executives, the trajectory of the two models has been a strange one. First, the two were rumored to simply be upper-level trims of the Grand Cherokees. FCA then clarified the roles, though both future models remained without a home as FCA shuffled U.S. production in a bid to boost Ram and Jeep output. While no longer assembly plant orphans, this latest news just adds to the unusual build-up.

Still, FCA’s greatest Jeep concern remains bringing the next-generation Wrangler to market. Describing it as “the perfect car,” Marchionne said boosted Wrangler output at the Toledo Assembly Complex (300,000 per year, on paper) will satisfy the global demand for the off-roader once the updated model comes online. “It fixes all the problems with the old car and keeps the identity of the Wrangler,” he said.

The new Wrangler will appear as a 2018 model, to be followed by a pickup variant, while the two luxury SUVs could appear as 2019 models.

What frame will the new SUVs use? The updated platform used by the next-gen Wrangler would be too narrow, leaving the next-gen Ram 1500 — due to start production in January 2018 — as a possibility, at least.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

61 Comments on “Jeep’s High-end Wagoneer, Grand Wagoneer Won’t be Unibody After All...”


  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    So a RAM ‘BURBAN is instead a Wagoneer and the “Denali” version is Grand Wagoneer?

    If he thinks he can sell that for $140,000 he better check what sorts of off gassing is coming from those sweaters he loves.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      Yeah, I’m not sure what people he thinks he’s capturing with this BOF move. You will no longer have the Range Rover crowd because it won’t ride well enough, and you won’t have the GM or Ford BOF crowd because it’s too much money.

      Nobody’s shelling out $40,000 more than they have to for unknown Escalade equivalent.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “because it won’t ride well enough”

        I’d argue a BOF vehicle tuned for comfort and not load-hauling rides every bit as well (in terms of comfort) and perhaps even better than many unibody cars. The mounts between the frame and body do much to filter out unwanted vibrations and impacts. Some of the cushiest cruising I’ve experienced was in a GX470 with the shocks set to “comfort.” Morphine-drip cruiser, even down some really beat up roads. Worth mentioning that Land Rovers (I’m thinking of the Discovery and RR Sport) used a stupidly heavy but solid combination of a unibody with a seperate chassis in addition to it (curb weight of an LR3 is close to 6k lbs). Chrysler has some good experience with tuning comfortable coil sprung live rear axles with air suspension on Rams, as well as air suspension on their unibody Grand Cherokees with IFS/IRS. I’m excited to see what the end product looks like, namely whether they go IRS (likely) or stick with a Ram solid rear axle (less so).

        RE: the insane sticker price, I agree in full. You can’t just go from being a non-entity in the segment to running with Range Rover Autobiography price wise. EDIT: I misread and thought the price would INCREASE from $140k. Yeah I’d hope they target Fullsize GM and Ford SUV pricing.

        • 0 avatar
          Corey Lewis

          Interesting points on the suspension. I suspect like you say it’d have a fancy air setup.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Yeah if ride comfort is the top priority and they actually tune the vehicle for that a BOF will blow away a unibody any day of the week. You can do a rock solid stiff body structure and let those body mounts and frame soak up the bumps before they get to the cabin in the first place.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Chrysler has some good experience with tuning comfortable coil sprung live rear axles with air suspension on Rams”

          Agree 100%.

          Just don’t expect to carry much……. which isn’t an issue for a SUV. Interior volume automatically reduces the odds of overloading.

      • 0 avatar
        JustPassinThru

        My thoughts exactly. Jeep as a brand is losing its cachet.

        The original Wagoneer succeeded in the market for two reasons:

        –The Jeep name, which resonated with WWII veterans who were now midlife family men. They remembered Jeep as a capable do-anything military car; a trusted tool.

        –Technological advancement and style. The Wagoneer was a flying leap forward for Willys, later Kaiser. The style was cribbed from in fact basically jumped in front of, the 1962-64 GM B-body wagons. The drivetrain sought to be modern…first the first American OHC six; and when that didn’t work out, given the compromises in modding a 1930s Continental Engine design…they went to first Rambler and then Buick for modern V-8s.

        And Wagoneers had TurboHydraMatic gearboxes, at a time when only the premium GM brands offered the same. Bel Air wagons got Powerglide; so did C-10 trucks.

        Those reasons, those determiners, are GONE. Someone born the year the HumVee became the military goat, is now in his thirties. Jeep to such a person was a stuggling Renault brand, later bought by Chrysler and now being made by that vendor of crap cars, Fiatsler.

        It has no good connection to such a person’s past experience, military or otherwise. It was a Mall-Rated Starbucks Explorer, driven by Valley Girls long after they got to where they had to dye the grey streaks out of their hair.

        So…in such a world…the Buy-American types will go with the Oval or the Maltese Cross; the trendy types will seek out the Range Rovers or Asian brands.

        Where does that leave Fiatsler? With a cash-cow brand that lived the short life of inexplicable fads.

        • 0 avatar
          White Shadow

          Jeep is laughing all the way to the bank. They can’t crank out enough Grand Cherokees and Cherokees to keep up with demand. The Wrangler is as popular as it ever has been. There’s no signs that this will slow down either. It’s a lifestyle brand and it’s well marketed.

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            The same thing has been said of the Ponycar megatrend; of the minivan trend; of the mini-pickup trend.

            None of those lasted, of course; and for the reasons I gave, the Jeep fad has pretty-much run its course.

            It would have survived as a brand for the same reasons that people bought them thirty years ago – sturdy construction and clever design – if they had a strong company or one that focused on quality, running it.

            It does not. Fiat disappeared from the American market in the early 1980s for a reason; and those reasons are repeating. This time Fiatsler will take the Pentastar under the waves, too.

            And Jeep will be a brand for sale in Bankruptcy Court – or else, if we repeat, it’ll be given to the UAW to run.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Jeep is laughing all the way to the bank. They can’t crank out enough Grand Cherokees and Cherokees to keep up with demand. The Wrangler is as popular as it ever has been. There’s no signs that this will slow down either. It’s a lifestyle brand and it’s well marketed.”

            -Jeep Marketing Chief, October 2007, right before a recession made a mockery of Jeep sales.

      • 0 avatar

        Won’t ride well enough? My body-on-frame, solid front and solid rear axle Range Rover rides 1,000 times better than any Wrangler I’ve ever had the mispleasure of riding in.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Yeah, with Escalade being the established leader in this segment, at a loaded-up $100,000 price point, I have no idea how a Jeep sells for $140,000.

      Yes, the Grand Wagoneer was basically the Escalade of its’ day, but who remembers that?

      @Corey:
      FCA’s after the Tahoe / Escalade / Navigator / Denali (i.e., pickup-based SUV) crowd, obviously. And a Jeep in this market makes total sense. The $140,000 proposed sticker is probably bullspit. I’d expect a Jeep Escalade fighter to come in at sub-Escalade money, not Range Rover money.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Yeah, I could see $60K – $80K…although Jeep would *really* be testing how much its badge is worth, since there’s considerable overlap with the similarly-sized Mercedes-Benz GL/GLS-Class at that price point. But $140K is absurd. That’s near-as-makes-no-difference to the price of a LWB Range Rover Autobiography, which I would guess to be superior to any sort of craftsmanship FCA is willing to put forth.

        • 0 avatar
          mikeg216

          It’s going to be 40-70k wagoneer on the ram 1500 chassis 70-100k Grand wagoneer on ram 2500 chassis.. With big block gas and diesel power they’re going to sell like hotcakes….put 12k on the hood with a decent warranty and they’ll sell 150k a year.. The suburban only comes with the 5.3 and you have to go Yukon to get the 6.2 but it tows barely any more.. The Yukon and suburban 2500 is gone and the last excursion is ten years old.. There’s going to be plenty of demand to be met.. I wouldn’t be surprised to see ford bring back the excursion they’re leaving money on the table

        • 0 avatar
          Truckducken

          But…but…but…HELLCAT!

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      And the new Wrangler will be perfect “car” with ALL of the problems fixed!

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    I wonder whether the original “claim” that the Wagoneer would be based on the next-gen Grand Cherokee was an accurate piece of reporting to begin with.

    But, yeah, if they’re going to make a Tahoe/Expedition/Escalade fighter, a truck frame makes perfect sense. You’d have to think it’d be based on the next-gen Ram pickup.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      But all those things cost much less money. You could get TWO Navigators for this claimed price on the GW.

      • 0 avatar
        Adam Tonge

        The $140K price was thrown “in the trash heap”

        • 0 avatar
          Corey Lewis

          That looked like a Steph assertion, and not what Sergio actually said though.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          @Adam, yeah finally noticed that.

          But do we think Fiatsler can sell them for $50,000 to $100,000? That’s what the GM triplets sell for.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “But do we think Fiatsler can sell them for $50,000 to $100,000? That’s what the GM triplets sell for.”

            Maybe not quite that high, but given that a GC can be optioned up to the high-$50,000 range, I can see a true full size SUV going for bigger money than that fully loaded.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            I don’t think they can compete with GM or the next Expedition/Navigator at the same price. Pricing it like the current Expedition/Navigator would be wise.

            They’ve won market share in the full size truck segment with price. An attractive vehicle and good lease prices will move units.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Maybe not quite that high, but given that a GC can be optioned up to the high-$50,000 range, I can see a true full size SUV going for bigger money than that fully loaded.”

            Almost every GC in Chicagoland I see is, at minimum, a Limited, with the Overland seemingly the most popular model and the Summit thick on the ground as well.

            A three-row Summit equivalent in the $70k range is probably a slam dunk, IMO. Hell, a Tahoe can get to that price pretty easily.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        The $140,000 figure was vaporware, Corey.

        My guess would be $70,000 or so for a Grand Wagoneer type car. And I think that’s entirely realistic.

        At that point, my question would be how the economy does. If we see a downturn, or a big up-tick in gas prices, that could be a HUGE problem for FCA, which seems to be putting a lot of eggs in the big-vehicle basket, with no presence in the compact and midsize segments. Traditionally, downturns are ruinous for vehicles like this. The 2008 recession positively NUKED sales of the Escalade and Navigator.

        • 0 avatar
          Flipper35

          The $140k was the price ceiling, not the average retail price and now that is gone too.

          You can get a Wrangler optioned out for $50k so a Wagoneer should be able to sell starting in that range. Grand Wagoneer maybe a bit more.

          I wonder if it will get the VM diesel to offset fuel prices?

  • avatar
    dwford

    The $140k price was a fantasy anyway. Why would FCA even want to sell a Jeep in that price range when they have Maserati and Alfa to take the really high end? There’s plenty of room in the $50-90k range for a Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer. Jeep has shown that it can sell high end versions of the Grand Cherokee, so buyers are accustomed to expensive Jeeps.

  • avatar
    NoID

    I wonder if, in the same way that the Cherokee and Grand Cherokee use vastly different platforms, so too might the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer?

    I’m thinking maybe the Wagoneer replaces the Durango as a large 3-row SUV that is on whatever unibody platform the Grand Cherokee replacement rides on, while the Grand Wagoneer gets this new body-on-frame platform.

    That’s all conjecture. Unless and until they want to Hellcat one of these beasts, I know just as much as the rest of you.

    • 0 avatar

      They’ve already said the Grand Wagoneer will be a trimline of the Wagoneer. Not a separate vehicle like the Cherokee/Grand Cherokee.

    • 0 avatar
      Johnster

      This is kind of sad because the Durango is a great set of wheels. It’s basically the same platform as the Mercedes-Benz GLS and close in size to the Toyota Land-Cruiser. A Jeep based on the Durango should sell reasonably well around the world. The Durango already get cross-shopped with the Tahoe/Expedition/Yukon and an upmarket Jeep version really seems like a no-brainer (although not at $140,000).

      There’s certainly room in the market for a larger BOF SUV to compete with Yukon XL Denali/Escalade ESV/Navigator L, but it seems like a smaller market limited to North America and the middle east.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Wait is Wrangler BOF? I thought all Jeeps have been unibody since 1968.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      No the Wrangler segment vehicle was always BOF and you can bet that the new one will be too.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      Can’t tell if /s or not…

    • 0 avatar
      JustPassinThru

      All Jeeps? Unibody?

      Depends on what you mean. The MILITARY “jeep” that succeeded the M38A1 (military CJ5) was the M151, the “Mutt.” That was unibody – designed by Ford, and made both by Ford and, after 1969, AM General. Jeep as a brand never appeared on one; nor was one ever made in Toledo. South Bend was the AM General plant.

      The Jeep brand vehicles were all BOF until 1984 with the XJ. That was a game-changer – every jeep-like vehicle or utility vehicle up to then was BOF; but the XJ was unit body. Critics predicted a bad end, but the AMC boys had done their work well.

      The CJ-7, YJ, and TJ remained BOF. The SJ disappeared in 1989, BOF.

      All new Jeeps since then have been unibody EXCEPT the Wrangler. I am surprised they didn’t try that; actually, give the M151’s success, it might just have made it a better rig. Not as forgiving to abuse, but lighter and structurally firmer.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Cummins-powered 3/4 ton Jeep Wagoneer “Gladiator” SUV with Power Wagon running gear?

  • avatar
    RHD

    100,000 is for the vehicle’s design, assembly and delivery, 40,000 is pre-payment for the anticipated warranty claims.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      “40,000 is pre-payment for the anticipated warranty claims”

      This, one million times. If FCA can’t resolve their quality issues they will continue to live with highly discounted transaction prices and poor resale values. Not a formula for moving high end product.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “can’t resolve their quality issues”

        “poor resale values”

        Seems to work just fine for Land Rover, albeit those initial transaction prices are maintained in the stratosphere owing to the brand cachet and capability of the vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          JustPassinThru

          Brand cachet, yes.

          But, capability? If there were TRUE capability, resale values would hold. Ever price out a used Toyota? That is true capability of design, whether an SUV, truck or car.

          Land Rover is sold as a social statement, and that loses when it’s no longer new. You’re probably too young to remember the tailfin Cadillacs of 1957-59. I’m not; and in an age where Cadillac was a statement of social standing, driving one of those monsters in 1970 was the opposite statement.

          It was the paradigm of a loser or a wannabee. Cadillacs of that era were cheaper, in 1970, than Falcons the same age.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Yes, true capability, and I say this as a dyed in the wool ‘yota-man. Now, it might leave you stranded in the woods with a failed air suspension, but when everything is working properly and assuming you’re not on rubber-band-shod 20 inch wheels, a Land Rover Discovery and even fullsize Range Rover are a sight to behold offroad. Their offroad traction control is simply sublime, especially when it can be combined with true locking rear diffs, and air suspension that detect diagonal “crossing up” and can force independent wheels lower in search of ground.

            Would I actually take one of these to some remote area and depend on it to work? Absolutely not, give me a Land Cruiser/4Runner any day.

            In short, capability does not equal durability/reliability in the way that I’m looking at it.

          • 0 avatar
            Corey Lewis

            People have a hard time accepting statements like “Car X has these qualities.” all the time online, and cite reliability.

            “The Bentley Brooklands is an exquisite looking car.”

            “But I mean it’s not that great, it will break down all the time.”

            No.

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            “In short, capability does not equal durability/reliability in the way that I’m looking at it.”

            Capability refers to whether the vehicle can do what it’s sold to do – whether traverse a mountain trail, or just, as a street econobox, start reliably, year after year, with only basic maintenance.

            If a vehicle does what buyers for that sort of car expect it to do, it will be considered capable – and have high resale value. That was true of the old SJ Wagoneers, and that’s true of Toyota Corollas today.

            That was NOT true of 1959 Cadillacs, the function of which was to impress neighbors. It’s also not true of BMWs and Audis today. Hence, low resale value. With the German cars, high cost of repairs and parts contributes; but they’re sold much the same way as Harley Earl-era Cadillacs.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Okay so Ferraris and Lambos are objectively less capable than a Corolla by your overarching understanding of “capability?”

            I’m talking about setting up two trucks side by side to climb through a set of obstacles, cross a diagonal rut, etc. A properly functioning LR will give many-an-offroader a run for their money (probably not something purpose-built like a Rubicon Wrangler though). No one here is disputing what the more durable AND reliable vehicle here is, which yes is what gives the Toyotas the massive lead in resale value.

            Note that I wrote “the way I’m looking at it” in my initial response. You moving your goal posts around isn’t really doing much good.

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            “Okay so Ferraris and Lambos are objectively less capable than a Corolla by your overarching understanding of “capability?”

            Note that I wrote “the way I’m looking at it” in my initial response. You moving your goal posts around isn’t really doing much good.”

            It’s really simple to understand when you think it through – instead of trying to find ways to paint yourself smarter than everyone else.

            Why does someone buy a Ferarri? To take the kids to the mall? Is that the reason?

            It doesn’t do a good job of that, so it’s not very capabable as a family-hauler.

            If it’s bought to wow ’em in the Caymans, for short hops around the island…it’s capable. At least when new.

            What does someone buy a Corolla for? To impress their friends at the nightclubs on Saturday nights?

            If that’s why he bought it, he’s going to be disappointed. But if he just wants reliable transportation, he’ll find it fully capable.

            As will the person he sells it to, years later.

            Why did someone buy an SJ Wagoneer? To haul deer carcasses out from the deer blind to the DNR station, and then to the garage, and then to the butcher, to finish dressing the meat? All this while muddy and bloody?

            He would have found the SJ a fully capable rig. And while it had niggling little issues, the Buick or AMC V8 and the THC or Torque-Flite transmission would have given him dependable, reliable service for years.

            Very capable.

            Why does someone buy a new car-Cherokee? Impress the other girls at Starbucks, after work at the government office, with its six-hour workday?

            It will…for the first year. As the systems break, and the trendy station wagon is no longer new, it will no longer be capable – just a money-pit.

            Got it?

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I can’t tell who’s more annoying and pedantic, you or me? I’m guessing it’s a tie.

            Here’s a janky-ass older Range Rover that a Russian youtuber bought as a project vehicle for his channel. Look at it crossing this berm diagonally:

            https://youtu.be/ibmpeobZSnI?t=563

            The truck starts to get crossed up and lose traction on the front wheel that’s hanging out, TC kicks on and the diff shuttles power across the axle. Take a look at the rear wheel, that is some excellent articulation for an IRS truck, aided by the air bag inflating to push that corner as far down to the ground as possible. When it does run out of articulation, the TC is once again there to incredibly quickly react to the wheel speed sensor and apply the brake. The truck absolutely cruises through an obstacle with minimal drama that the solid front/rear axle UAZ featured before it needed a running start with. That is capability as I’m narrowly defining it for MY own purposes. Reliability does not enter the equation.

            Elsewhere on the channel there are ample opportunities to see videos of just how bad of a trainwreck these older LR Range Rovers (L322) truly are in terms of long term ownership or buying a used one.

            BTW this is rich:

            “instead of trying to find ways to paint yourself smarter than everyone else.”

            “Got it?”

            Got it.

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            @gtemnykh

            I see you still don’t get it. I’m not arguing performance or potential, but purpose and suitability to that purpose.

            There are two facets to the argument: a) whether the vehicle delivers the benefits promised; and b) whether those benefits are in performance in intended use, or social/posturing.

            Status cars lose that status when used. Hence an expensive Cadillac was never an expensive used car.

            A car sold to deliver performance, either in terms of speed or off-road capability or just long life…will be judged on its ability to deliver that performance. Well-engineered product will hold value, be it a 1960s Mercedes or a 2010s Toyota.

            Fiatsler Jeeps deliver neither. They are sold as fashion accessories; and their engineering is not, by statistics, durable. The days of the torquey Jeep in-line six are long gone; the Fiat-redesigned Chrysler V-6s are not good as off-road power.

            The Jeeps as they are and as they are going to be, by Sweaterman’s plans, are not going to remain popular because they don’t deliver value and, just as with Apple computers, will fall out of fashion.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I’ll just point out that initially you took issue with my narrow definition of “capability,” which in the context of what I was talking about meant offroad performance (and for Range Rovers, enviable on-road performance and comfort as well) of SUVs. I was stating that RRs and Discoveries do this well (at least while new) and that capability, which when rolled into the history and luxury and exclusivity by way of high price make up Land Rover’s “cachet.” This is why people willingly pay so much for these trucks that end up 7 years later tinted out, scraped up, piloted by a sassy and profane lady that cut me off in the Wal Mart parking lot (true story LOL).

    • 0 avatar
      BaBlogger77

      Agreed. I would not consider a FCA product now because of their apparent inability to make a reliable automatic transmission. The automatic transmission was invented several decades ago. There is no excuse for any automaker to produce a transmission that cannot last at least 150,000 miles with proper maintenance. I don’t care about 9 speeds-5 is fine, as long as they all work without hiccup. Seems like FCA and, before then, Chrysler, has been unable to exorcise its transmission demons since at least the 1980’s.

      I am very familiar with Jeeps from back in the 1990’s, especially the Grand Cherokees. Although nicely appointed, I found most from that era were poorly assembled rattle traps with electrical problems. A friend of mine’s mother had hers bought back as a lemon. Newer ones seem much better built but still rank low on the reliability scale.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I will say that reports of transmission failures are relatively rare on the LX-platform forums. The 8-speed is pretty new so this is mostly on the 42RLE and NAG1.

        The problem is just that the car itself disintegrates in short order like a decomposing banana.

        A 3.5L 5A LX would probably be a good beater if the electric and body quality was a bit better.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        ….The automatic transmission was invented several decades ago….

        Does about 8 decades count as “several”?

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    You can already order the Wagoneer’s successor from your Toyota dealer. It’s the Land Cruiser and costs more than you want to know.

    As far as I know, the Land Cruiser can still head off road.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    Shhh, don’t tell anyone a 1972 Chevrolet Caprice Classic can’t have a good ride because it is a BOF vehicle :).

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Or, perhaps one will be unibody and the other BOF…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • hamish42: Il live in Ingersoll, Ontario. There are about 12,000 of us here. Nearly everybody in this tow, from...
  • golden2husky: That makes sense. It is why instrumented tests are useful. I see no reason not to provide the data; the...
  • thegamper: Seems totally reasonable to hold heavy duty trucks to same standards as other passenger vehicles if people...
  • mikey: Automated machinery requires highly skilled , experienced tradesmen. Where do you find such people that are...
  • dont.fit.in.cars: Driving the speed limit, I get 15 mpg with my 6.0 gasser.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States