By on July 21, 2009

Ford got a whole lotta love around here yesterday for agreeing to hook up TTAC’s staff with better press fleet access. Though the move shows that Ford is more willing to face the truth than its Detroit competition, the announcement generated perhaps a bit more optimism about the firm’s fortunes than the data warrants. One commenter got so carried away by the good vibes that he opined “the Ford brand pretty much has a good car in every segment there is, with the exception of the minivan.” Not quite. Let’s turn to our XLS spreadsheets of Ford monthly sales since 2003, shall we? [Thanks to bumpy ii for the spreadsheet]


Ford has never come close to selling the 500 in old Taurus volumes. In fact, one of Ford’s oldest products, the Crown Victoria/Towncar/Grand Marquis, has been about as competitive sales-wise as the 500/Taurus (and has to be more profitable). Only time will tell if the refreshed Taurus will be the full-size sedan hit that has eluded Ford since the Taurus name was discontinued. There’s no sign of a turnaround yet.

Similarly, the Flex is off to a slow start. Though its sales show steady growth, Ford’s stab at the alterna-MPV segment is miles away from the kind of volume that the saggy Windstar used to push. The question facing the Flex is whether its sales will keep ramping up or top out at 5-6 thousand units per month for a year or so and then fall away, as was the case with Freestyle/Taurus X.

On the SUV front, the Escape is the name of the game. Although far longer in tooth than the Edge CUV, the Escape is proving the more resilient model. Edge was slaughtered by rising gas prices last summer, and has been slow to recover. Escape sales took less of a hit, and bounced back faster and stronger. Not that anything has made up for the giant sucking sound that used to be Explorer and Expedition sales.

Focus sales haven’t been the same since the Fusion was introduced. Sure, there have been a few good months, but demand has been especially inconsistent since the latest North America-only “restyle.” The Fusion did add sales in a segment that Ford had largely abandoned, but wasn’t a consistent 15k/month+ seller . . . until the recent refresh. It’s safe to say (for now, anyway) that the new Fusion is a legitimate hit. Only the F-150 outsells it, and only the Escape comes close.

Mercury and Lincoln are a wasteland. Full stop. A few thousand Fusion rebadges per month, the Mariner and the MKX are the only models that register. Sure, they represent extra profit, but the rebadge game can’t last forever. On the other hand, Volvo does have unique product and is doing even worse. The premium game hasn’t been good to Ford.

On the other hand, Ford has the skeleton of a solid product lineup for its Ford brand. If Fusion stays in demand, adding the Fiesta and the Euro Focus could give Ford the most promising American small-car lineup in, well, forever? Meanwhile, if the F-150 stays solid and the Ranger finally gets a major update, Ford could be remarkably well positioned. There are lots of “ifs” to all of this, but if you’re looking for optimism in Detroit, Ford is easily as good as it gets.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

33 Comments on “TTAC Data Dive: Ford Monthly Sales From 2003-Present...”


  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    I think your commentator was correct, and so are you. Ford does have a good entrant in most segments. However, not all of those good entrants have been as successful as Ford would like.

    Go back a few years at Ford. The old Taurus had ceased to be competitive, and was only a big fleet seller. Ditto the Windstar/Freestar that had burned way too many minivan buyers over its life and has cost Ford a lot of sales over the last several years. (Out of perhaps a dozen friends with Windstars, I know if precisely one who has had a reasonably good experience. Another 8 or so had serial transmission or head gasket failures, and have not touched a Ford since. Most have bought Odysseys or Siennas.)

    Current products appear to be good cars and trucks, and the word seems to be slowly creeping out. Every happy Fusion owner will open the hearts of other potential Ford customers.

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    I hate to debunk a well-researched argument. You have a lot of excellent points but I think that a few things should be reconsidered.

    “Since the introduction of the 500, Ford has never come close to matching old Taurus volumes.”

    Apples to oranges. Most of the Taurus sales at that time were to rental fleets, not retail customers. We need to extrapolate retail, and I would argue that the midsized Fusion is actually the more legitimate replacement of the Taurus.

    “In fact, one of Ford’s oldest products, the Crown Victoria/Towncar/Grand Marquis has been about as competitive sales-wise as the 500/Taurus (and has to be more profitable).”

    Yes, but the 500/Taurus is in an extremely competitive market that has little if any margins on it (full-sized near luxury cars). The Panther platform is very cheap to build and supplies a completely different type of customer… primarily fleet customers in government and the livery services. The two may be similar in size but that’s about where the similarities end.

    “Only time will tell if the refreshed Taurus will be the full-size sedan hit that has eluded Ford since the Taurus name was discontinued. There’s no sign of a turnaround yet.”

    Yes… but it’s received the best reviews of a domestic full-sized car since the LH sedans. That’s a very good sign. What they’re doing now should literally pay off dividends in the future if the NA market recovers.

    “Similarly, the Flex is off to a slow start. Though its sales show steady growth, Ford’s stab at the alterna-MPV segment is miles away from the kind of volume that the saggy Windstar used to push.”

    The minivan market is less than half of what it was ten years ago. A better set of metrics to measure the Flex’s competitiveness would be owner feedback and marketshare. As RF knows, I wouldn’t mind using one for a long-term test to assess the needs of a middle aged family.

    “The question facing the Flex is whether its sales will keep ramping up, or top out at 5-6k units per month for a year or so and then fall away, as was the case with Freestyle/Taurus X.”

    Very good point. Ford is probably more into the ‘What If’ scenarios these days than any other company since their models currently have the longest shelf life in the industry. By 2011 a lot of these questions will be answered with new and phased out models.

    “On the SUV front, the Escape is the name of the game. Although far longer in tooth than the Edge CUV, the Escape is proving the more resilient model. Edge was slaughtered by rising gas prices last summer, and has been slow to recover. Escape sales took less of a hit, and bounced back faster and stronger. Not that anything has made up for the giant sucking sound that used to be Explorer and Expedition sales.”

    All entirely 100% correct. You also could substitute GM, Chrysler, and Toyota models in the same paragraph. Compact SUV’s are the only semi-bright spot in that segment of the industry… with the possible exception of the Lexus RX.

    “Focus sales haven’t been the same since the Fusion was introduced. Sure, there have been a few good months, but demand has been especially inconsistent since the latest North America-only “restyle.” The Fusion did add sales in a segment that Ford had largely abandoned, but wasn’t a consistent 15k/month+ seller… until the recent refresh.”

    It’s worked. The Focus is one of those models that has truly differentiated Ford from the rest of the domestics in the eyes of the public.

    “It’s safe to say that, for now anyway, the new Fusion is a legitimate hit. Only the F-150 outsells it, and only the Escape comes close.”

    Yep, they’re doing a very good job in the midsized sedan market.

    “Mercury and Lincoln are a wasteland. Full stop. A few thousand Fusion rebadges per month, the Mariner and the MKX are the only models that register. Sure, they represent extra profit, but the rebadge game can’t last forever. On the other hand, Volvo does have unique product and is doing even worse. The premium game hasn’t been good to Ford.”

    Very true.

    “On the other hand, Ford has the skeleton of a solid product lineup for its Ford brand. If Fusion stays in demand, adding the Fiesta and the Euro Focus could give Ford the most promising American small-car lineup in, well, forever? Meanwhile, if the F-150 stays solid and the Ranger finally gets a major revision, Ford could be remarkably well positioned. There are lots of “ifs” to all of this, but if you’re looking for optimism in Detroit, Ford is easily as good as it gets.”

    Absolutely. I told a friend of mine who has a dealership in SC that if I could have any type of dealership, all things being equal, it would be a Ford dealership. They are positioned to take on a lot of GM and Chrysler customers while offering a far stronger lineup than Toyota on the truck side.

    Ford is now literally in the driver’s seat. It will be interesting to see what happens.

  • avatar

    Steven Lang: Yes, but the 500/Taurus is in an extremely competitive market that has little if any margins on it (full-sized near luxury cars).

    Because that is true, Ford poured a fair number of them into fleets. Several of my drug rep and countless Farmers Insurance claims people (in my area) drive the 2008-2009 Taurus. They look more than a little similar to the rental queen Taurus earlier in this decade and the current cross section of Panther chassis buyers.

  • avatar
    th009

    Looking at the six-month figures for Lincoln and Mercury, each one comes in in the low-40K range, below the much-denigrated Buick and Cadillac numbers (and just above the Saturn figures). Volvo can barely manage half of that.

    Ford should dump Mercury and put its efforts into the Ford and Lincoln brands. Mercury has little to no brand image, and no differentiated products. Why waste efforts on it? Maybe Lincoln could be saved by dropping Mercury …

    I expect Volvo will be dropped like a hot potato as soon as someone is willing to take it, putting an end to the sad and expensive Premier Automotive Group venture. Had Ford not spent its efforts on PAG, it would be a far stronger company today.

  • avatar
    dcdriver

    I am the commenter referred to above and I stand by my comment about Ford having a good car in every segment. I said good, not great. I really don’t see a weak car in their lineup compared to the offerings of the other manufacturers.

    Muscle coupe/ convert.- Mustang (widespread praise so far)

    Compact sedan- Focus (pretty good, better than GM, viable alternative to Civic, Corolla)

    Midsize- Fusion (in the same league as Camry, Accord)

    Large- Taurus (kind of a dying segment but stacks up with Impala and Avalon)

    Compact SUV- Escape (closer to the top of segment than the bottom)

    Midsize- Explorer (compares much better to Pilot and Highlander than Trailblazer does)

    Full size- Expedition (maybe a dying segment, but still near the top, 3rd row way better than GM)

    Midsize crossover- Edge (better than GM and Chry. offerings)

    Compact pickup- Ranger (the only real compact pickup left?)

    Full-size pickup- F150 (sales king)

    ????? segment- Flex (slow sales so far, but what car doesn’t have slow sales in this environment.

    Looking at that lineup, they have a competitive/viable offering in every segment. Not necessarily class leading accross the board, but overall it is a good lineup. I’m not really a car junkie so the fact that I can even name all of their models and place them in the right segment off the top of my head and can picture what they look like in my mind says a lot.

  • avatar
    Paul Niedermeyer

    Ford’s weakness in the premium segment has been a perennial/recurring problem for Ford forever, with the exception of the rise of Lincoln in the eighties because of Caddy’s drastic downsizing.

    Mercury has never been a genuine success in all its seventy years.

    I agree with Steve Lang that the Fusion has effectively become successor to the Taurus of yore. I bet interior dimension are quite similar too.

    I question how well the new Taurus will do, given that it has lost it’s one redeeming quality: huge interior room. I understand the Accord is roomier in certain key interior dimensions! Chopping the Taurus’ roof was a questionable exercise.

  • avatar
    Seth L

    Good analysis.

    I’m looking to supplement my Cooper S, and, unprecedented for me, I’m looking at three Fords: Flex, Transit Connect, or Fusion Sport.

    So anecdotally they have a bright future.

  • avatar
    th009

    A couple of thoughts on dcdriver‘s comments …

    I think the weakest car in its segment is the current Focus. It was a good car when it was first launched in 1998, but it’s now over 10 years old, and both interior and driving dynamics are well below the class standards. Ford has a far better model in Europe, and it’s incredible that Ford chose to do a facelift on the first-gen model for North America rather than bringing the new one here.

    The Flex may be good but it’s really not impressive in the sales department — possibly because of its polarizing looks. Take a look at the full-size crossovers (though it’s really closer to a 1970s full-size wagon …) and you’ll see the Flex selling 20K units so far this year. Chevrolet Traverse is at 41K, GMC Acadia at 27K, Buick Enclave at 21K and Saturn Outlook at 18K. That’s 87K units for GM’s Lambda platform to 20K units for Ford.

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    The myth of “an improving” Ford is laughable, by any metric.

    Ford’s in worse shape now, and their condition will continue to worsen.

    The fact they didn’t take government largesse will really come back to haunt them.

    Their sales are still declining, and they’re still losing money.

  • avatar
    rnc

    “and you’ll see the Flex selling 20K units so far this year. Chevrolet Traverse is at 41K, GMC Acadia at 27K, Buick Enclave at 21K and Saturn Outlook at 18K. That’s 87K units for GM’s Lambda platform to 20K units for Ford”

    The Flex and Edge are both build on the D3 platform so lets compare 61k for two Ford models vs. 87k for 4 GM models, and I have to imagine that the Margin on the Flex blows anything that GM has out of the water. If you wanted to include the Freestyle/taurus X and Lincoln MKX that gets you to 77k and then the cars that are built on the D3 and that platform isn’t really looking to bad. While I believe that the Lambda is a dedicated CUV platform.

  • avatar
    ajla

    The Escape is as much of a SUV as the Scion tc is a sports car.

  • avatar
    CommanderFish

    A year ago, I would have made the case that Mercury should have been essentially Ford Europe. North America does not want to pay for good small cars like Europe, so put the European small cars (mainly Mondeo and EuroFocus) into Mercury, where they could charge a premium to cover the difference.

    But, now that Ford is homogenizing their small car lineups, that argument is now gone, and I seriously can’t think of any reason to keep the brand around anymore, especially now that most Ford dealers are Ford-Lincoln-Mercury. Slash Mercury, and give Lincoln some more room for their, um, “starships” to take off.

  • avatar
    th009

    rnc — Flex is on the D4 platform (really maybe that’s D3.5) while the Edge is on the Mazda-developed CD3 platform.

    Anyway, the main point was not the efficiency of production but that the Flex has not been particularly successful to date. (The Edge competes in a different segment, so that’s a while different thing.)

  • avatar
    kowsnofskia

    On the SUV front, the Escape is the name of the game. Although far longer in tooth than the Edge CUV, the Escape is proving the more resilient model. Edge was slaughtered by rising gas prices last summer, and has been slow to recover. Escape sales took less of a hit, and bounced back faster and stronger. Not that anything has made up for the giant sucking sound that used to be Explorer and Expedition sales.

    This is interesting. I currently live on the Marblehead Peninsula in Ohio and Edges are frankly everywhere around here. In fact, the area’s residents seem to have some sort of Ford fetish because I see the miserable Freestar almost as often as I see the Edge. Despite this, however, I hardly ever see a late-model Escape out and about.

    When I lived in Cleveland a few months ago, however, I saw few (if any) Edges and only a small number of Escapes around.

  • avatar

    Ohsnapback… any evidence for any of those statements other than still losing money? Sales % is up(or are you comparing to when they were #1?). The have a solid line up.
    Granted that is sort of the capitalist standard for a good company but I can’t agree that they will regret not dipping heavily into Uncle Sams pocket. I’m an AMC guy so I was shopping for the best American car for my money and picked the 2010 Mustang GT because it was the best car for my needs. I look at what Ford sells and I wish I had sold for them rather than Chrysler when I was in sales. And while I’m far from a big investor, I’ve made more than 3X on their stock, the only car company I invested in back in nov 08.

  • avatar
    walksatnight

    Poor Mercury. Really the only thing notable I can think about the brand is the Cougar and that old commerical – “Look for the sign of the cat” with the Cougar sitting on the sign and that babe in the slinky dress.

    20 years ago if you gave me Olds, Plymouth, Pontiac and Mercury and told me three of them would be disappeared. I would have picked Mercury as the first to go, followed by Olds.

  • avatar
    50merc

    All cars cost too much for sales to be healthy in an economic trough.

    One reason Milan sales are sluggish is the Premier model seats in garish two-tone black and white.

    It’s a shame they squashed the new Taurus. Is it a plot to push customers into SUV’s?

    I’ve been shopping, and I think the industry as a whole is shooting itself in the foot by reducing paint choices to little more than–
    Black, Dark Gray, Light Gray, Silver, White, Dark Red and Dark Blue.

    Interiors are either yellowish beige, light gray, or black. Remember when Lincolns featured gorgeous dark blue or burgundy leather?

    Would it kill manufacturers to offer more colors on the outside and inside?

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Although far longer in tooth than the Edge CUV, the Escape is proving the more resilient model.

    I think that has everything to do with the price point of the two vehicles and the value they deliver. With the demise of the Focus wagon and the non-presence of the Transit, the Escape is Ford’s cheapest do-it-all vehicle. It hits the cost/capability point of the curve quite effectively.

    The Edge leans a little more to the discretionary side of the curve. It’s a vehicle that people want more than they need. With the drying up of easy credit, you can’t push this kind of vehicle on buyers. Gas prices may have cooled it’s sales, but it’s credit that’s truly killed it.

    That said, I do see a number of them on the road, and more than I see of the Flex, which is a more serious problem. What Ford does need is a either a real minivan, a passenger version of the Transit, or a heavily-decontented Flex. There’s a real need for inexpensive people movers and currently that is filled by toe-tag Caravans and the Kia Rondo.

  • avatar
    Kyle Schellenberg

    I’ve never owned a Ford but I’ve always felt that their biggest problem has been their too-conservative styling. Someone forgot that taking a styling gamble like the old Taurus can sometimes pay off because it stirs people to react – do I love it or hate it? As soon as you trap those people who fall in the love it category, it’s easier to make the sale. By creating a line that tries not to offend anyone, it causes more comparison shopping and ultimately sales going to other companies. To boot, Ford was adopting a boring style language across multiple models.

    It seems that they’ve finally shaken that funk and are designing cars that people would consider decent looking. The Flex is cool, it just hit the market at the wrong time. When you look at it makes you to think the word “Mini” which then causes you to think of the word “boat”. For it’s segment the new Taurus is interesting and the Fusion is a very nice looking car except for the obnoxious chrome outline on front bits (some models). There is such as thing as too much chrome.

    I think that Mercury could stick around but should be scaled back to just a few products and have a least one product that’s not available under another badge (like the old Cougar). Maybe they could do something like no dicker pricing and have a pre-configured models that default to the higher end on options.

    Lincoln is a mystery to me. I don’t like them, but I can’t put a finger on why that is. Overall I’d say that they are just designed to seem cold and sterile. In the luxury market you need a car that invites you to come sit inside it instead of something that looks like a professional chef’s stainless steel kitchen.

    Once the Fiesta arrives, then I think we’ll see some serious buzz surrounding Ford assuming they’re still treading water. Any upturn in the housing market will also help F150 sales which would help a ton (or half-ton).

  • avatar
    ronin

    Flex is way too expensive.

    The new 2010 Taurus, so greatly raved over, is not all-new, but a refresh of the 09, which is a refresh of the 500.

    Ford has a lot of bad karma to overcome, from its rust buckets of the 70s, with GM racing each other to see whose line could be more craptastic. This stuff is not overcome overnight. Their own horribleness helped give the imports inroads. Now they are victims?

    They need to build nice products for another decade to begin to have real credibility. And they need to sell them cheaper than the imports. And cheaper than their current prices.

  • avatar
    paris-dakar

    I think the weakest car in its segment is the current Focus. It was a good car when it was first launched in 1998, but it’s now over 10 years old, and both interior and driving dynamics are well below the class standards.

    To me, that’s the shame about the Focus, it was a very attractive looking car in it’s initial release, crisp lines and clean details – still looks good 10 years later. Plus, it was offered in a full range of configurations – sedan, wagon and 3 and 5 door hatches. Of course, the mechanicals and electrics were and unsorted nightmare.

    Now it’s totally sorted out and ugly as sin. And just the shitty sedan, if I recall correctly.

  • avatar
    fincar1

    What has happened to the Mercury brand in the last few years is an indication that Chrysler did the right thing in 1960 by killing off DeSoto. The gap was filled easily with high-line Dodges and low-line Chryslers. Of course their dealer structure made it easier in that all the DeSoto dealer were Plymouth outlets too.

    Ford has a similar setup – its Mercury dealers would still have Lincoln. Unfortunately they seem to have pretty much p_ssed away that brand too. It’s too bad…I have had several Lincolns and Mercurys that I enjoyed owning, of course that was in the 60’s and 70’s.

    There’s a lot of work for Ford to do. I wish them well in remaining free of the Government Motors garbage dump.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    Mercury has never been a genuine success in all its seventy years.

    That seemed a bit harsh. Mercury had good sales in the 50s and 60s. I bet the division pulled in a lot of extra profit in those years.

    At least up to the mid 60s Mercs seemed to actually be different than Fords – an actual step up to a nicer car, rather than a Ford with a different grill.

    Today Ford/Mercury are as alike as Plymouth/Dodge were. It’s a wonder Ford still bothers to come up with different names for the Mercury models.

  • avatar
    th009

    To me, that’s the shame about the Focus, it was a very attractive looking car in it’s initial release, crisp lines and clean details – still looks good 10 years later. Plus, it was offered in a full range of configurations – sedan, wagon and 3 and 5 door hatches. Of course, the mechanicals and electrics were an unsorted nightmare.

    Now it’s totally sorted out and ugly as sin. And just the shitty sedan, if I recall correctly.

    +1

  • avatar
    akear

    On the whole Ford’s products are alot weaker than GM’s. Ford needs cars to compete with the Corvette, CTS, and Malibu. It is impressive that Ford did not ask for a bailout. Now all they need is some good cars.

  • avatar
    Kyle Schellenberg

    Yes, GM and ‘weak’ definitely don’t belong in the same sentence.. unless you’re referring to their new model, the C13.

  • avatar
    cdnsfan27

    Its a shame really about the Freestyle/Taurus X. The car was not marketed at all by Ford but the owners are fanatically devoted to their cars. Check out myfordfreestyle.com. We have an 06 FS LTD and we couldn’t be happier. I drove my neighbor’s new Outlook today (taking 6 kids to Kings Dominion) and though it drove well I couldn’t get the seat to fit me just right, couldn’t get my left arm comfy on the door rest and though it sat 8 compared to 6 in my FS there was a lot less room in the hatch. Also it averaged 5 MPG less on the highway than my FS.

  • avatar
    geeber

    Ford has a car to compete with the Malibu…the Fusion. And it competes very well. The 2010 model moves ahead of the Malibu.

    It would be nice if Ford had direct competitors to the Corvette and CTS, but please note that those models weren’t enough to keep GM out of bankruptcy. The Corvette is a great car, truly in a class by itself, but the CTS is an also-ran compared to the BMW and Mercedes competition.

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    For those who doubt Ford is in a death spiral, financially, just pull up their EBITDA.

    That tells you anything you will ever need to know.

  • avatar
    rnc

    As opposed to Toyota’s EBITDA? This is a point the industry has known was coming for along time (just like what will eventually happen with the airlines), Ford prepared for it and is positioned to make it through and then thrive, people keep comparing Ford’s plan with GM’s, Ford is 3-4 years ahead. And the while Models referenced above (Corvette and CTS) are nice they are halo vehicles that don’t budge the bottom line, Ford made thier investment in mass market cars and based on the number of fusions I am seeing it seems to have been the smart choice. In terms of cash flow (another area they are compared to GM), Ford’s cash burn was to bring 10 new models into production (us alone) and to retool thier factories to a worldwide standard, while GM’s (except for the Volt) was just to keep the lights on. Additionally they were smart enough to do thier borrowing through the banks instead of debt issuance, that is what will save them if sales do not increase to around 12m next year.

  • avatar
    th009

    10 new models … how new are they anyway? The Flex is new, but the Focus, Fusion, Taurus, Mustang and F-150 are all basically facelifts. Transit Connect is new to North America, but has been built in Europe since 2004.

    Ford has close to $30B in debt, so the question of cash burn is critical for the company. Yes, they were smart to issue debt and raise cash early, but they are not even close to out of the woods yet.

  • avatar
    rnc

    Not smart to issue debt, smart to finance with loans from banks, which can and will be refinanced over and over again. GM used debt issuance (bonds, very unflexable, lots of owners) to pay for unfunded liabilities, Ford used loans (banks, flexable, terms and rates can be changed and changed again, very few orginizations to deal with and they have an incentive to help you when things go bad) to reorganize/modernize for company (alot of these monies were used to keep it going, but not the orginal intent of).

    This was the stroke of genuis (or luck) on thier part not the debt raised but what kind of debt, they could have issued debt at that time period and wouldn’t have had any problem doing it, if they had, they would have been part of the bail out. For decades Japanese and European companies used bank debt over bond issuances and in US business schools this was mocked (basically a control thing, issue debt you still control your destiney, loans the banks have you), there was a reason for them doing that, it was flexability.

  • avatar
    th009

    Corporate bank debt will typically have covenants (based on balance sheet metrics, operating profit etc) as well; if you do not meet the covenants, the bank can call the loan. Bonds or bank loans, either way a company has debt it has to service and manage.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • jkross22: Pretty sure they never really focused on the lower end of the market… cars selling for less than 40k....
  • EBFlex: “ Do you know of any current federal legislation banning the sale of new ICE vehicles?” What an incredibly...
  • Art Vandelay: BTW, where can I get a [email protected] “trifecta tune” chump?
  • Art Vandelay: We know…every new car GM comes out with is the one that finally catches the competition. Been...
  • Art Vandelay: I’m comforted by the words of Billy Zane in “Titanic” where upon being informed that...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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