By on July 22, 2009

Christopher Knittel of UC Davis made this graph of trends in the Honda Accord’s weight, horsepower, torque and fuel economy since its introduction. His entire report Automobiles on Steroids: Product Attribute Trade-Offs and Technological Progress in the Automobile Sector is available for download in PDF format from UC Davis. The data kind of speaks for itself though, doesn’t it?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

47 Comments on “Priorities...”


  • avatar

    Now add one more graph with sales. The accord has grown to heavy fat and big in my opinion and yet it sells and sells well

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    I looks like the previous Accord engine had 160 HP and 275 Lb/Ft of torque. That’s not the Honda I know. Perhaps a little known diesel option?

    The Accord has no doubt grown substantially, but this guy’s data has some serious flaws.

  • avatar
    Nicholas Weaver

    The problem, the graphs need zero-centering:

    Weight gain: 50% (2200lbs to 3200lbs)

    Power gain: >100% (75hp to 160hp)

    Fuel economy: Pretty much flat (bounces between 25 and 32 mpg, mostly centered around 27-28 mpg)

  • avatar
    Paul Niedermeyer

    There was an excellent study covered by Green Car Congress a couple of years ago that showed how almost all of the profound technological efficiency advancements in the field have been offset by increases in weight.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Given the demand for safety, speed and the price of gas, this is more of a reflection of what the American car buying public wants than it is on Honda’s priorities (which is making money).

  • avatar
    dcdriver

    Obviously, Honda knew what it was doing. The consumers loved the Accord, the Accord wasn’t that big, but the consumer wanted a bigger sedan–so they made the Accord bigger– continued sales hit. They could have simply created a new model, like Toyota did with the Avalon, but that’s riskier. I’ll bet a lot of previous gen Accord owners like the extra size and power and therefore will buy it, the ones that don’t like the extra size will maybe take a look at the TSX, and therefore stay in the Honda family.

    Also notice that the new TL is 6 inches longer a few hundred pounds heavier than the previous gen TL, it is now about the same size as the current RL . The bigger TL with AWD now has more separation from the TSX, which grew as well.

  • avatar

    It shows what you get when the primary design goal is to add more doodads and accommodate the population’s ever widening butts.

    How about a graph with two data points …

    1909 Ford Model T:
    2.9l, 20hp, 1500 lbs, 20-25 mpg

    2009 Ford Taurus SE:
    3.5l, 265hp, 3741 lbs, 18-28 mpg

    In 100 years the technology has progressed immensely, and all of it has gone into comfort and convenience with little regard for consumption.

  • avatar
    marshall

    almost all of the profound technological efficiency advancements in the field have been offset by increases in weight.

    Of course.
    And that’s why you can’t buy a car that gets 60+ MPG highway today – even though you could 20-25 years ago.

    And that’s the answer to my question
    Q: ‘Why can’t anyone build a car like the Honda CRX anymore?’

    A: Because no one can make a 1700 lb car anymore. Even the frickin’ SmartCar(rm)(c)(tm) weighs more than that!

  • avatar
    jmo

    Q: ‘Why can’t anyone build a car like the Honda CRX anymore?’

    Um… cause when some txting teen or q-tip runs a red light, no one wants their last experience on Earth to be their head going up their own ass.

  • avatar
    grog

    Q: ‘Why can’t anyone build a car like the Honda CRX anymore?’

    Wouldn’t that be the 2 door Yaris hatchback? Or something of it’s ilk?

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    In 100 years the technology has progressed immensely, and all of it has gone into comfort and convenience with little regard for consumption.

    How fast was a Model T? How well did it crash? How reliable was it? How bad were it’s emissions?

    I think we’re being a little disingenuous, here. The modern Accord is, for all intents and purposes, a different car. For a net-zero change in fuel economy, we’ve gained huge advances in reliability, emissions control and performance.

    If you’re bemoaning the loss of the early-eighties Accord, buy a Fit. In terms of space, power, performance and amenities even it’s a better car.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Q: ‘Why can’t anyone build a car like the Honda CRX anymore?’

    Wouldn’t that be the 2 door Yaris hatchback? Or something of it’s ilk?

    Yes, it would be. Note that people bitch constantly about how small, cheap and tinny the Yaris is—sometimes it’s the same people complaining about the Yaris as are pining for their long-lost Ford Festiva or Geo Metro. As it turns out, we don’t really want a small, cheap, no-frills car after all.

    Colour me absolutely shocked. Not.

  • avatar
    th009

    I strongly encourage everyone to click on the link to the PDF file and read at least some of Christopher Knittel’s paper — there is a lot more to it than just a set of Accord power/torque/fuel economy/weight charts. I don’t think it’s a perfect analysis, but fundamentally it has value, and his conclusions are in the right direction. It might even make you think about what we really need …

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    I think we’re being a little disingenuous, here.

    No, I think he’s being quite accurate, and I think we’re all agreeing. He said that in 100 years technology has progressed immensely, but it’s gone into other things than fuel efficiency like comfort, convenience, and power. You mention a few more, like reliability and emissions control. Engines are more efficient; it’s just that power has increased while fuel efficiency has stayed relatively the same.

    Want that to change? Raise gas prices in some manner or another.

    I also agree that graphs starting at zero would be more accurate. The standard complaint about MPG being the reciprocal of the most useful measure applies too. (Most people care about how much it costs/how many gallons it takes to drive a given distance, not the reciprocal. MPG is useful for a “how far can I go on a tank” question, though.)

  • avatar
    th009

    @marshall: The Elise weighs less than the second-generation CR-X. And the new Fiesta should be close, as well, though we don’t know how much weight will get added in federalizing it.

  • avatar
    moedaman

    psarhjinian :
    July 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    In 100 years the technology has progressed immensely, and all of it has gone into comfort and convenience with little regard for consumption.

    How fast was a Model T? How well did it crash? How reliable was it? How bad were it’s emissions?

    I think we’re being a little disingenuous, here. The modern Accord is, for all intents and purposes, a different car. For a net-zero change in fuel economy, we’ve gained huge advances in reliability, emissions control and performance.

    If you’re bemoaning the loss of the early-eighties Accord, buy a Fit. In terms of space, power, performance and amenities even it’s a better car.

    Ya, people tend to forget that cars aren’t only made for the consumer, but they have to meet various government requiremments. The Accord is now built to sell to mainstream american wants. Thus the increase in size. People who want a car like the original Accord, can buy the Fit. Which like you said, is better in every department. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to drive a Model T nowadays. And I’m pretty damn sure that none of the complainers in this thread would either. Hell, I wouldn’t want to drive the 1966 Beetle I once had. I think that car weighed 1300lbs!

  • avatar
    trk2

    How about a graph with two data points …

    1909 Ford Model T:
    2.9l, 20hp, 1500 lbs, 20-25 mpg

    2009 Ford Taurus SE:
    3.5l, 265hp, 3741 lbs, 18-28 mpg

    In 100 years the technology has progressed immensely, and all of it has gone into comfort and convenience with little regard for consumption.

    Wow! A “shock” comparison used by greenies to point out…actually it points out nothing if you have deductive reasoning skills. The comparison is completely meaningless not to mention fraudulent. The Model T could only attain a maximum speed of 45mph and it’s actual mileage was in the 15-18mph range. Try running the Taurus at 45mph and you’ll find it does far better then the 28mpg you list. Don’t let facts get in the way of your argument though.

  • avatar
    SunnyvaleCA

    if weight, horsepower
    and torque were held at their 1980 levels, fuel economy for both passenger cars and light trucks
    could have increased by nearly 50 percent from 1980 to 2006

    I think this shows a fundamental problem… you need to give up a lot of weight, power, and torque just to get a measly 50% fuel economy improvement. If you’re already getting 20 MPG and gasoline is only $2.50/gallon, why would you make the comfort and performance sacrifices to save just a few hundred dollars a year?

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    re: [email protected]:

    According to Ford you are not giving the Model T enough credit for its weight, and you are giving it too much credit for its fuel economy. Ford puts the Model T at 1200 pounds, with fuel economy of 13-21 mpg.

    http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=858

    Moreover, that is just Ford’s estimate. The Model T cannot be tested under the EPA fuel economy test schedules because the Model T’s top speed is 45 mph (see above link), which is not fast enough to complete the EPA’s highway OR city fuel economy testing.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/fe_test_schedules.shtml

    Everyone has traded fuel economy for weight (safety) and power; even in Europe and Japan, where gas is taxed at much higher rates, people do not drive around in 1200 pound, 20 HP cars.

  • avatar
    Vorenus

    If you’re bemoaning the loss of the early-eighties Accord, buy a Fit. In terms of space, power, performance and amenities even it’s a better car.

    If by “better car,” you mean “a more powerful car with more features,” then I agree.

    That said, I do not share *that* definition of “better car.”

    I think that the newer Accords are laughably gigantic. Moreover, any additional power added to cloak the car’s enormity is rendered largely useless because of its FWD platform.

  • avatar
    jmo

    I want to double check my numbers but from what I can find the highway fatality rate dropped from 3.3 per 100 million miles traveled to 1.35 in 2008. Miles traveled increased from 1,527,295,000,000 in 1980 to 3,014,116,000,000 in 2006.

    If the cars were as unsafe today as they were in 1980 instead of 43,443 dead in 2006 we would have 208,406. 160,000 more dead per year – not quite sure if it’s worth it to save a little gas…

  • avatar
    th009

    @jmo: Are you saying that the decrease in highway deaths is directly caused by the increase in vehicle weight? And there are no other factors involved?

    Causality is not the same thing as correlation … if you think it is, you should read the open letter to the Kansas school board and pay particular attention to the chart showing that the decrease in the number of pirates is causing global warming.
    http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    If by “better car,” you mean “a more powerful car with more features,” then I agree.

    Actually, I mean a car with more space, lower emissions, better performance and safety. Other than, ostensibly, looks, what precisely makes a vintage Accord a better car than the current Fit?

    The answer is…. nothing.

    We have a huge logical fallacy happening: people decry the bloating of cars like the Accord or Camry and neglect that newer subcompact cars offer the same as the “unbloated” original versions. If you find the Accord bloated and pine for the nineties version, then buy a Civic. If you find the Civic bloated and pine for an eighties Accord, buy a Fit.

    I think we need to get over the fascination with nameplates. If Honda stuck an Accord badge on the current Fit, and a (oh, I don’t know) a Legend, Inspire or Humdinger badge on the current Accord, would people be shouting “bloat!” in such a knee-jerk fashion?

    Automakers are selling good, cheap, small cars just like we ostensibly want. We’re just not buying them. Either the marketing is really good, or people don’t actually want cheap, small cars.

    I think that the newer Accords are laughably gigantic.

    I’m not so sure. They offer the same space and better performance than cars like the old GM B-Bodies or the current W-Bodies. I don’t think people consider the Impala to be “laughably gigantic” (in fact, they do the opposite), but I suspect that’s because Impalas are supposed to be big because they always have been, while Accords have always been small.

    The problem isn’t what is being built, it’s preconceived notions and consumer demands. At best, you might be able to complain about automakers’ marketing departments have chosen the easy path of selling Bigger, Faster and More, rather than trying to sell other, less easy-to-hock virtues.

  • avatar
    don1967

    1909 Ford Model T:
    2.9l, 20hp, 1500 lbs, 20-25 mpg, 0-star crash rating

    2009 Ford Focus:
    2.0l, 132hp, 2623 lbs, 24-35 mpg, 5-star crash rating

    In 100 years the technology has progressed immensely. Period.

  • avatar
    JMII

    I wounder… what would my ’85 Civic S Hatchback be like with the current Civic Si engine in it? 60 mpg and 0-60 times in the low 6s?

  • avatar
    jmo

    Are you saying that the decrease in highway deaths is directly caused by the increase in vehicle weight? And there are no other factors involved?

    No, I’m saying there are many factors and many of those factors have tended to make cars heavier.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    Also interesting would be an inflation-adjusted selling price chart. At some point, super-imposing all the graphs would show what iteration of the vehicle was the “best value” for the buyer. (I’m guessing the 1990-1994 Accord was the best value of the Accords…) Of further illumination would be the same studies for the Camry and for comparison, the Taurus of the same period….

  • avatar
    th009

    don1967: In 100 years the technology has progressed immensely. Period.

    But that’s exactly the author’s point. He is saying that average fuel economy could easily be much higher if the technology were directed appropriately, rather than just making cars bigger and more powerful.

    Whether it should or not is up to debate, but his conclusion that it could is quite correct.

  • avatar
    frank rizzo

    This is paper is very good, and long overdue for a number of reasons. It certainly matches with industry surveys which until recently ranked the importance of fuel economy on par with working cigarette lighters and an in-car trunk pop. Consumers don’t want an inefficient vehicle, but above a certain level they care more strongly about comfort, safety, performance, and other features. Unless gas prices are higher, via taxation, supply, or speculation, these graphs will nicely characterize our domestic norms.

    Further, it points out that there are trade-offs associated with the govt CAFE standards. We will not meet them by relying on the usual rate of innovation. The composition of the domestic fleet will change. IMO, it isn’t clear that this is positive on all levels, since we’re going to be mixing smaller new cars with our larger existing fleet.

    Finally, the paper documents the relative efficiency of all automakers, noting that domestics tend to be above average over the entire sample period, though have lost this advantage somewhat as of late. It goes on and speculates that fuel economy “may” have been related to the auto financial troubles of late. However, keep in mind that there is zero analysis of financial issues.

    If you liked this paper, his “Pain at the Pump: How Gas Prices Affect Automobile Purchasing” is a must read.

  • avatar
    50merc

    psarhijinian: “How fast was a Model T?”
    Wonderfully fast. That is, for people switching from the horse and buggy.

    “How well did it crash?”
    Very well. Quickly, often, and almost effortlessly. Definitely the automobile of choice for silent movie comedies. Oh, the T had no crash protection. But people had worse threats to worry about, such as tuberculosis, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, typhus, and household and workplace accidents which were awfully common.

    “How reliable was it?”
    Not bad compared to other cars designed in 1908. And a village blacksmith could fairly easily take up a new trade at the Ford garage.

    “How bad were its emissions?”
    Few people complained, considering it resulted in eliminating thousands of tons of horse manure previously deposited daily on city streets.

    Like they say, everything’s relative.

  • avatar
    Anna Mac

    I’d like to see charts on the Corvette over the last 56 years. Those charts would provide the type of trends one expects to see with technological advances.

    Because, honest-to-dog, I don’t care much about anything surrounding a Honda. Believe I’m on the wrong web site.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    There is a basic economic answer here: The consumer is willing to devote some portion of his budget to fuel costs, and will buy a vehicle that fits within that budget.

    When fuel is cheap, people will happily trade fuel economy for size, safety, comfort, luxury or whatever else they want, while they will give up at least some of those things up when fuel gets more expensive, just so long as it stays within their budgets.

    That is borne out by the data. Since 1946, consumption dollars devoted to fuel has comprised an average of 3.2% of total consumption, with a standard deviation of 0.6%, so it hasn’t varied much over time. The SUV boom occurred during a period when total fuel costs were below the historic norms as a percentage of consumption, which tells you that a lot of people felt that their fuel budgets went a long way and could be stretched into much larger vehicles. Now we’re back to something close to the long-run average, so we’ll see what happens.

    That’s a nice summary of why CAFE is a failure. The way to inspire lower consumption is to make fuel more expensive. If the price goes up, people will buy vehicles that get them back to their fuel budget happy place, whatever that is. If you’re too impatient to let the free market get you there, then you’ll just have to tax it.

  • avatar
    aamj50

    I wounder… what would my ‘85 Civic S Hatchback be like with the current Civic Si engine in it? 60 mpg and 0-60 times in the low 6s?

    I have an ’84 Civic DX hb and wander the same sort of thing all the time. My car with a 3bbl carburetor gets 40mpg all day long, what could these manufacturers do if they rediscovered small, lightweight cars today. Even the current “small” cars like the Fit seem enormous next to my Civic.
    Oh, and a 3dr Yaris is not the new CR-X because the CR-X was genuine fun to drive, more like an economy sports car than just an economy car.

  • avatar
    spyspeed

    My head is spinning imagining the same charts for the Ford Thunderbird.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    Nicholas Weaver :
    The problem, the graphs need zero-centering

    + 1,000,000,000 !!!!

    These type of non-zeroed crap-graphs drive me nuts. This crap is common in stock charting by degenerate brokers.

    This is particularly annoying coming from an academic. There no need to exaggerate the change in weight or hp.

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    Cars have gotten bigger because we are a rich people who are no longer satisfied with crank windows, plastic seats and fresh air on a hot day. The Accord was a great car in the 80s (we owned one) but it was not as big as a traditional American family sedan. This is why the Taurus outsold it until some time into the 90s.

    The thing is, no matter how rich the country is, there was always a lightweight, inexpensive basic car available. While my family rode around in a 66 Country Squire, our neighbors had a VW. But now, is a Yaris our new beetle? Even my Honda Fit is not available with crank windows, let alone with vinyl seats and no air. It could just be that there is no longer a significant market in the US for a car with rubber mats and no radio.

  • avatar
    th009

    Pch101: That’s a nice summary of why CAFE is a failure. The way to inspire lower consumption is to make fuel more expensive. If the price goes up, people will buy vehicles that get them back to their fuel budget happy place, whatever that is. If you’re too impatient to let the free market get you there, then you’ll just have to tax it.

    That might help with that wee budget deficit, too!

    I think the way to go would be to set a fixed target price for gasoline (say, $5/gallon or whatever strikes your fancy) and adjust gasoline taxes monthly based on world oil prices to achieve that target level. You will encourage people to buy fuel-efficient cars, reduce the budget deficit — and have predictable fuel prices, allowing both manufacturers and consumers to make the right decisions.

  • avatar
    don1967

    @th009,

    My comment was intended as a rebuttal to [email protected]’s Model T/Taurus comparison. Not all technology has gone into making cars bigger, as evidenced by the Focus’ smaller engine and superior fuel economy compared to the Model T.

    The Taurus comparison doesn’t show the overall direction of technology; it merely illustrates the broader choices we now have.

  • avatar
    wsn

    Weight increase is not good, but justifiable if other benefits are obtained.

    For instance, Accords become larger and larger inside. This is both a want and a need for many buyers. And Honda does the weight/room trade off better than almost anyone else. So, it’s justified.

    Furthermore, when you look at the targeted audience, some of the Accord buyers could be previous Crown Vic buyers. So, for the same buyers, larger sedans has become more spacious on the insider, smaller on the outside, faster and more efficient.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    In 2009 dollars:

    1980 Accord, base sedan = $17054
    2009 Accord, base sedan = $20905

    So for a modest 22% price increase over 29 years, you get a lot more car. Less regulation would make this comparison even more lobsided.

    The good old days weren’t so good.

    Sources: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=46009, http://automobiles.honda.com/accord/, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

  • avatar

    The wife drives a hard loaded ’08 Accord and it’s a damn fine car.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    i can’t blame the manufacturers – they are merely giving the consumer what he wants

    he wants a close to 4,000lb 5 star NCAP car with all the trimmings

    now every manufacturer has bloat… the BMW 3 is now about the size of the old BMW 5 (or even bigger)

    it is natural most cars get bigger and more expensive while they introduce new models to fill the void vacated by their newly more upspec cars

    an accord where I am is a more upspec almost luxury 4 door sedan now

    it is very very far from the cheap utilitarian sedan for the ordinary man

    the ordinary man will buy a sonata or camry or that new chevy cruze (which although classed as compact is really about 3,500lb anyway)

    i am reminded of the way things work for the US Air Force or the airlines:

    Mr. Boeing… we need a plane that carries more bombs/people farther, faster and in more comfort.

    Mr. Boeing goes ok… we need to design a bigger plane with more weight and we have all these new environmental and crash concerns.

    Mr. Boeing talks to Rolls Royce/Pratt & Whitney… we need a bigger engine and we need more fuel economy… oh and we need to carry more fuel… in the end the plane needs to be bigger.

    And so it goes. A vicious circle where everyone has their ‘pull’ pressures and your car ends up being a fat overweight guzzler.

  • avatar
    dejal

    I’ve had 3 generations of the Accord.

    In my 81 Accord 4 door if you jacked up a car to change a tire and a door was closed on that side you couldn’t open it. If it was open you couldn’t close it. No air or power windows. All used up by 140K miles. Manual transmission. Had a carb problem which was a nightmare. I was young and never noticed the awkward leg position on the pedals. Probably got 33 MPG

    My 87 Accord you could jack the car up without bending the unit body. A bigger car. Lasted until 232K miles when it met its fate in a head on collision. Had air and power windows. Was starting to rust out pretty bad in spots. Had to replace a clutch around 130K and did the exhaust. I think I had some air conditioning work done. Needed a new starter around 220K Loved the car but the driving position sucked big time. Again the average MPG was around 33

    Replaced with 98 Accord EX 4 door, again with a stick. Bigger still. Still on the original clutch and exhaust with 227K miles on it. Got some rust in the rear wheel well on the drivers side. Also needed a new started around 220K. Driving position is just fine. Longer distances are no problem Is it a bigger car than the others? Yeah. The gas mileage is around 31 on this one.

    I liked the 87 the best but the 98 is a better car. The gas mileage difference is insignificant and it’s much more comfortable to drive. It’s also held up a lot better than the other 2.

    Would I buy a new one? I don’t think so. It’s too big for me, but that’s me.

    I’ve driven the last gen Fit and it is a better car than the original Accord.

    The current Civic is a better car than the 87.

    And the current Accord is more car than the original Acura Legend.

    Have the gas mileage figures been adjusted to reflect the same methodology? In the late 70s / early 80s advertising had ludicrous mileage claims. Also a few years ago, cars lost, what 20% with new measuring standards?

    To Anna Mac

    I care about your comment as much as you care about this subject.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    This all happened when the CAFE rules went into a deep freeze in the mid-80s.

  • avatar
    Greg Locock

    I have been working on the same platform for 18 years.

    In that time the /base/ model has gained

    IRS
    280 kg
    6 speed auto instead of 5 speed manual
    HVAC instead of a heater
    CD 6 speaker system instead of 2 speaker radio
    50% more power
    16 inch wheels instead of 14s
    the body is twice as stiff in torsion
    airbags
    big brakes
    electric glass, electric seats, elctric mirrors
    big improvements in emissions and five star crash
    etc etc

    The price has increased by 50% in dollar terms, almost exactly the same as inflation, 2.6 %pa (part of that is tax changes of course).

    In normal use I don’t think the fuel consumption has shifted much (it might be a little better), the performance certainly has.

  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    i can’t blame the manufacturers – they are merely giving the consumer what he wants

    he wants a close to 4,000lb 5 star NCAP car with all the trimmings

    now every manufacturer has bloat… the BMW 3 is now about the size of the old BMW 5 (or even bigger)

    There is some truth in that, but it’s not the main reason why manufacturers do it.

    It enables them to better preserve the previous model’s resale, and introduce a newer model below that as a brand entry point.

    Notice the progression of;

    BMW 5, 3 and now 1 series, or

    Toyota Camry, Corolla, Yaris.

    If the new model delivered less “value” than the outgoing, as in making it hard to put through a price rise with the new model, it damages the previous model’s resale, and the economics of the industry.

    @ Pch101

    Since 1946, consumption dollars devoted to fuel has comprised an average of 3.2% of total consumption, with a standard deviation of 0.6%, so it hasn’t varied much over time.

    Could you provide the source for this data? How does it compare to the rise in real (inflation adjusted) disposable income?

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Could you provide the source for this data?

    It’s from the BEA. You’ll have to use the table creation feature to turn that into a spreadsheet that includes the appropriate years, and then calculate the percentage from there. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=65&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2009

    How does it compare to the rise in real (inflation adjusted) disposable income?

    My point was more about ratio of relative nominal consumption, independently of the CPI, so I didn’t look at that. However, you can get the information here: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=64&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2009

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: After playing around with various options, I have become a wiper blade snob. I go to rockauto in the...
  • sgeffe: Especially the one where the poor father-to-be injures himself “south of the border” while attempting the...
  • Art Vandelay: Pile of S H I T
  • eng_alvarado90: I stand corrected on that one.
  • Lou_BC: I wanted a smaller truck so I can go more places in the backcountry. In town I get around just fine in my 20...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber