By on January 13, 2012

It was around April of 2011 when I noticed an ad in the Toronto subway for the 2012 Ford Focus, touting fuel economy of 59 MPG. I dwelled on that outrageous figure for a second, made a mental note to check if they were using Imperial MPG measurements and then promptly fell asleep on the train home and missed my stop. A Google search for the Ford Focus mpg claims didn’t yield anything from the Blue Oval, but did reveal a Google ad showing Mazda touting the same figures for its 2012 Mazda3 SkyACTIV, rated for 40 mpg on the highway. Even so, this would only be 48 mpg Imperial. So what gives? 10 mpg is not an insignificant difference.

The wildly exaggerated fuel economy claims came up again,while doing research for my Dodge Avenger story. Dodge’s Canadian website shows at 29/42 mpg city/highway, along with some other comically high figures, like the Challenger and Charger returning 24/39 mpg. Dodge notes that as far as fuel economy ratings go “Transport Canada test methods used. Your actual fuel consumption may vary.” Of course, when you convert the Avenger’s L/100km rating into US MPG (9.9 and6.7 respectively), the conversion works out to 23.76 mpg in town and 35.11 on the highway, which still doesn’t jibe with the notion that they are using Imperial MPG figures.

So, what exactly are the Transport Canada test methods? Canada’s Fuel Consumption Guide offers a long-winded explanation involving cars being broken in for 6000 km, and then tested on a dynometer using a standardized procedure. The only problem is that all fuel economy ratings are voluntarily reported to Transport Canada by the OEMs. A report by the Canadian Broadcasting Company found that the Consumption Guide regularly overstated fuel consumption figures, sometimes by as much as 22 percent. The Canadian guide even offers a warning on page 10 advising consumers that

“Fuel consumption ratings in Canada and fuel economy ratings in the United States will differ significantly. Beginning with the model year 2008, the United States implemented additional testing cycles and procedures for its fuel economy ratings.  Furthermore, U.S. fuel economy ratings are listed in miles per U.S. gallon and are averaged based on U.S. sales and adjustment factors.”

The CBC report also stats that Canadian tests are done under “ideal conditions”, while the EPA’s 2008 revisions to their fuel economy standards “…added tests using air conditioning and during cold temperature at city speeds and harder acceleration and braking at highway speeds…” Canada’s methods, on the other hand, date back nearly 40 years.

What makes this so nefarious is that the L/100km metric is rarely understood by a population that ignored Canadian car publications for U.S. rags, making MPG the most common fuel economy heuristic in people’s minds. The cavalier attitude towards the marketing of mpg figures, in a country with a high cost of living, pricier cars and more expensive gasoline is quite frankly deceitful if not nefarious.

On Monday, I will be picking up a Mazda3 SkyACTIV, and while I had originally intended to do a Take Two Review of the car, I will be keeping a very close eye on fuel consumption. Canada’s fuel guide lists the car as returning 37/56 mpg for the sedan with a 6-speed manual, and 40/58 for the automatic equipped version – likely the Mazda reported numbers under “ideal conditions”. This works out to 7.7/5.0 L/100 km and 7.1/4.9 respectively. Converted to US MPG, this would be 30/47 or 33/48 mpg respectively. A discrepancy between the numbers is still present. Let’s see what I come back with at the end of next week. The Globe and Mail’s Michael Vaughan wrote a report about the matter this week, but nobody from AJAC, Canada’s Auto Journalist guild, has raised the issue so far.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

47 Comments on “Why Is Mazda Marketing a 58MPG Mazda3 SkyACTIV In Canada?...”

  • avatar


    All Government fuel economy ratings are only really useful on a relative basis, not an absolute. In other words, if the Gov rating says car A will get 30mpg and car B gets 40mpg, chances are in the real world car A will get better than car B. The end user might only get 30 mpg out of car B, but chances are he would get rather less out of car A.

    Here in the states, I consistently get better than EPA on all of my cars. Others get consistently less.

    • 0 avatar

      That’s exactly it.
      EPA ratings are primarily intended to provide a standardized measuring stick. You’re individual driving style may imply a different measuring stick, but you should for the most part be able to assume that one car will get better mileage than another.

      That’s not always the case, especially given that some cars are now additionally optimized in ways that may affect economy more in city-style driving (standard hybrids, smart fortwo, Fiat 500, etc.) or in highway cruising (Corvette, almost any of the new crop advertising around 40MPG), but it’s better than the days when some manufacturers advertised the 0-50MPH times when others used 0-60. Specific values there are also fudgable (fungible?), but at least if everybody sticks to 0-60, comparisons are easier and more meaningful.

  • avatar
    Rental Man

    Sky Active real Question.
    Mazda 3 / Mazda CX5. Why does the Manual get better MPG in the CX5 yet in the Mazda3 the Automatic is king of MPG?

    • 0 avatar

      I wondered that, too–not so much that it’s higher/lower, but that the CX-5’s manual is 3 mpg higher than the auto. (But after considering the reported combined numbers, it’s clear the auto was rounded down to 32 and the manual rounded up to 35.)

      My first suspect is the gear ratios, but who knows? The 35 mpg the EPA announced is higher than Mazda’s predictions, so maybe even they were surprised by it?

  • avatar

    This just in, automakers bend the truth for their own personal gain!

  • avatar

    Wait, tested on a dynometer? So… in Canada vehicle weight and aerodynamics have no effect on mileage?

    • 0 avatar

      This is why the EPA figures usually don’t translate into actual driving results. All of the manufacturers (are supposed to) use the same procedure so that there is consistency in the results. Dynamometer. Power sucking accessories like the AC off. No headwind or steep grade to climb. You get some “scientific basis” for the numbers by sacrificing real world results. But to get the latter, you would have to require each manufacturer to run its vehicles over the same road course, at the same speed(s), and under the same ambient conditions.

      • 0 avatar

        Even if its on a dyno, you need to tell the dyno how much resistance to acceleration to provide, and this number varies for each car based on it’s mechanical drag, rolling resistance & aerodynamics. This resistance is measured for each car, so that the EPA test accounts for aerodynamics & rolling resistance.

        As far as I’m aware, this resistance testing done by the EPA is a coast-down test where the car starts at a set speed, then allowed to coast down with no engine power being provided. A log of vehicle speed & distance vs time is used to establish how much combined “resistance-to-motion” the car exhibits at each speed, which is then used by the dynamometer (along with the car’s weight) to determine each car’s specific resistance to speed & acceleration to simulate actual driving conditions. True, there aren’t simulated hills in the test, but in general, every hill you go up, you also come down, and as far as a standardized test, the effects of a hill would pretty much fall out.

        However, this method for testing “resistance-to-motion” becomes more troublesome with electric vehicles & hybrids, that may have a certain amount of regen or coasting designed in when the driver isn’t pressing either pedal. The EPA tries to ensure that none of the electric motors are doing anything by monitoring the current to each, but it’s been hypothesized that the reason the Fusion hybrid posted such great fuel economy numbers when it first came out was that its electric motors were slightly driving the vehicle during the coast-down test, so it traveled further than expected. This was then interpreted by the dyno as less resistance-to-motion, so that when the car was tested, the engine was doing less work than would really have been necessary to actually drive at those speeds.

    • 0 avatar

      Thanks toplessFC3Sman, very informative.

  • avatar

    Ford advertises their trucks here as getting 30+ mpg. Anyhow, it’s strange that Canadians still relate to mpg, rather than the “official” liters per 100 km. We converted to metric decades ago. Not to mention height. I don’t know how many centimeters tall I am.

    • 0 avatar

      A friend of mine who is a mechanical engineer in the auto sector asked me last weekend how the hell the F-150 Ecoboost can get 31mpg highway. I just remembered that now.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah, I have one of those Canadian 30MPG Ecoboost F-150s. I get at most 20 MPG on the highway. Still better than most, but it is not a fuel sipper by any means. I bought it for towing duty anyway, not fuel economy.

      Both of my vehicles have fuel economy meters in them and they both display in l/100km. Because of this, it’s now my preferred measurement.

      I think the real problem with the advertising of MPG here is most people think in terms of a US Gallon, not the imperial gallon.

      • 0 avatar

        But even the imperial/US conversion figures don’t jibe, as my article shows. 40 mpg US would be 48 mpg imperial, not 58.

      • 0 avatar

        Wayne Gerdes of did a long distance test of the Ecoboost F150, from Georgia to California, fully loaded with gear and 5 passengers.. they averaged 32mpg.. no dangerous tailgating was used and they never exceeded the posted speed limits.

        Its actually not that hard to exceed the EPA numbers for ANY vehicle.. and that is the official definition of hypermiling.

    • 0 avatar

      You think Candada is messed up? When I was in Ireland, all the speed limits were in mph, and the distances between towns were in km.

  • avatar

    Winter will make the mileage quite a bit worse, so when you come back and say you got way worse mileage, that will be a big factor.

  • avatar
    Japanese Buick

    Making wildly exaggerated claims about mileage seems guaranteed to generate lots of very angry and disappointed customers who will probably be very vocal. It just doesn’t make any sense to do that.

    it’s one thing to shade a little, like push from 38 or 39 to 40 to get over that magic boundary, because they can plausibly argue that someone’s actual results of 1-3 mpg less are within margin of error. But 10 mpg will be impossible to explain away.

  • avatar

    “Why is Mazda marketing a 58mpg…” ?!

    Because they can, and their competitors test to the same unrepresentative method as well. As long as you don’t expect it to match reality, it works fine for comparison shopping.

  • avatar

    I’m sorry, you were expecting AJAC to make a stink about this? AJAC!?

    AJAC gets sweaty criticizing poor cupholder placement.

  • avatar

    FWIW, nobody I know of working age uses MPG here, we all go by L/100km. We might have grown up on Road & Track, but our pumps still dole out the stuff in litres and our odometers are still in kms.

  • avatar

    I have a hard time figuring out my actual mileage for city versus highway because I never have a tank that is 100% on or the other. Combined mileage is the more important number to me. If I had to guess I’d say that I’m usually running 15%/85% city/hwy and my combined mileage has generally been 27.xx – 29.xx mpg and over the last 3400 miles I’m averaging 28.1 mpg. The one time I had a rather large portion of highway driving I pulled an easy 36.xx mpg at 85 mpg.

  • avatar

    This is not a complex question. Transport Canada is optimistic regarding mileage and the EPA is closer to reality. Most in the US will exceed the EPA estimates and most of us in Canada will do much worse than the Transport Canada estimates. It’s all about comparison. If I compare a 40 mpg car with a 30 mpg car, then I know that I’ll be realizing about a third better mileage.

    The litres per kilometre I feel works well here in Canada. As we start to use it, like anything, it becomes comfortable and a useful method of measurement. For example, I (and probably most Canadians) can’t imagine going back to Fahrenheit instead of Celsius temperature.

  • avatar

    As I’ve said here before, there’s no one stupider than a Canadian. I should know, I am one. Don’t get me started on the price of milk in Canada and the other ways we Canadains shoot ourselves in the foot every day. All the while thinking we are so much smarter than those “Americans” across the border!!!

  • avatar

    Ugh, MPG numbers, the new horsepower number. I get 50 MPG, ya well I get 52 MPG.

    It’s a subjective test in a lab no matter how you slice it. There are so many variables that impact MPG. Under inflated tires? Could whack you 2 MPG right out of the gate. Low rolling resistance high mileage tires versus DOT approved for street use racing compound? E10 in the tank versus pure gas? Did you MAYBE step on the gas a bit too hard? Did you maybe come on the brake a little too soon? Uphill. Downhill. Cold versus hot, clean air filter versus dirty, an injector maybe not spraying optimally?

    Just like HP I could get ten cars of the same make and model made on the same day with the same engine, tranny, and gearing combination, run them all ten times each on ten different dynos and I’ll have 100 different horsepower numbers. And I don’t mean +1 or -2 as a range either. The gap will likely be as wide as 10%. Again, a million little variables. Oh, and then those million little variables on those 10 different engines producing all different numbers then has a different MPG number.

    I know people who own GMT900 trucks/SUVs and SWEAR they can get 24, 25, even 26 MPG highway average on a tank full to empty drive. I know other people who have never seen 20 MPG, same engine, tranny, model year. Too many variables.

    The EPA numbers are a good educated guess – good for comparison. Should they be perfect? Yes. Can they be perfect? When we get tolerances on fuel production, tire production, and automotive production to 0.00000 let me know.

  • avatar
    Oren Weizman

    The 2011 Camry Hybrid Catalog says the car does 50 MPG in Canada, maybe it’s one of those imperial gallon things, or japanese gallon …

    I have no fucking clue, who gives a crap about the 2011 Hybrid Camry anyways

  • avatar

    I’m disappointed in this article/discussion.

    Ever looked at CAFE numbers? Those are significantly higher than EPA numbers for the same car (around 20%, IIRC). In fact, most of the 40 mpg (hwy) that hit the market this year are close to the 50+ mpg CAFE standard. (It also means that when the govt announces details about CAFE–they don’t mean everyone is going to be forced into a Prius tricycle to meet such ‘ridiculous’ numbers.)

    It’s similar to the thermodynamic efficiency calculations engineers do on engine cycles. Those come back around 2x reality, but it’s okay, because engineers know that in real-life engines, the results are about half of the calculated values. That’s basically what the EPA does. They get certain results in the lab (CAFE), but then they scale it back for window stickers.

    Given what I’ve heard from drivers of the SkyActiv Mazda3, I expect its cruising freeway mpg (US) is in the mid-40s.

    • 0 avatar

      CAFE numbers are irrelevant to a discussion of Canadian advertised fuel economy numbers

      • 0 avatar

        Actually, I think redav is spot-on… I suspect that the Canadian fuel-economy numbers are nothing more or less than the original, unadjusted EPA test. The old test is still performed to determine a car line’s impact on the manufacturer’s CAFE, while its results were adjusted downward in the ’80’s to make window stickers more realistic (and then some more tests and adjustments were added in 2008 because people still complained they couldn’t meet the window sticker numbers, which were only designed to provide equal ground for comparisons between cars.)

        The EPA’s 2012 data can be had here: Per the Mazda3 DI 4-door gets 28 city, 40 highway, 33 combined as its window-sticker numbers. While that version of the Mazda3 isn’t in the 2012 data list yet, there is one other car that does get those window-sticker numbers (Focus SFE), and that car’s unadjusted highway economy is 57.6 MPG.

      • 0 avatar

        CAFE numbers are irrelevant to a discussion of Canadian advertised fuel economy numbers

        I disagree because it’s an example of what every govt does. Japan’s ratings are way optimistic. Canada’s are way optimistic. I believe European’s are up there, too. And, yes, so are the US’s, if you use the raw CAFE numbers. Thus Canada’s are right in line with everyone else’s.

        The question shouldn’t be why are the Canadian numbers so high, but why don’t other countries publish a second set of numbers that are more realistic for daily driving.

  • avatar

    Yes, officially Canada adopted metric system, but it does not stop grocery stores from advertising prices per pound, not per kilogram. This way they creating the illusion that you don’t pay as much. For metric challenged people 1kg = 2.2lbs or 1lb=0.45kg. And milk on a good day is $4.20 for 4L (or an Imperial gallon) and gas is around $5.2 per US gallon (without corn juice).

  • avatar

    A theory: could these numbers be because Canada’s highways tend to be a LOT more open than US ones? (And i’m talking outside of Toronto and Ottawa)

    Think about it, if one drives from outside Toronto to say, Vancouver, is 58mpg (Imperial) really out of the question with a SkyActiv in a 3?

    See: Top Gear test of Jaguar XJ DIESEL wagon driving from Basel, Switzerland to Blackpool, UK with one tank of fuel 750mi (Imperial). I believe the claimed MPG (again, Imperial mind you) was 47-48. Amazing. And that was a much bigger, heavier car.

    Correct me if I am wrong as i’ve never personally taken this route, and my Canadian driving experience was in Niagara Falls as a 16 year old…:)

    • 0 avatar

      Alberta is actually really high up, so cars tend to suffer more than a bit efficiency wise. I don’t know how it’s altitude compares to the rest of the continent or Canadian Prairie.

      BC is all hills and high mountain passes on mostly two lane roads filled with heavy trucks and the odd passing lane. I get ~7l/100k on a motorcycle, 13-16l/100k in a ’10 Jeep Wrangler depending on whether I am heading inland (up hill) or not. There are roads in BC that will make anything feel gutless.

      The altitude (thinner air) is what kills.

      Not sure about the rest of the country.

      Oh.. and the l/100k on the Jeep is nowhere NEAR what the window sticker said I would get..

    • 0 avatar

      Does altitude really affect efficiency for a modern, fuel-injected vehicle? Wouldn’t the throttle just open a bit more to compensate for the thinner air, with less WOT power available? I wonder how much reduction in aerodynamic drag occurs at higher altitudes.

      In the almost 8 years I’ve owned my Mazda3, my best tank was a 600 km spring drive from Calgary to Invermere and back the next day. I managed 6.2L/100km or 38 USmpg. Calgary is at 3400 ft, Invermere is at 2800 ft, and the maximum elevation reached during the trip is about 5000 ft.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    Don’t overemphasize fuel economy. Cars of similar size and performance consume roughly equal amounts of fuel. Canadian government endorsed fuel economy statistics are pure fantasy.

    Does anyone really have a feel for what liters/100 km means? Unlike miles/gallon, it’s an inverse, nonlinear scale. The difference between 9L and 10L/100km is only 3-mpg, but the difference between 5L and 6L/100km is 9-mpg. So how will a 6.8 rating affect your fuel costs vs. 5.7? Get out your calculator – it’s 8-mpg. If we must use metric why not the more sensible km/liter as some European countries?

    • 0 avatar

      While I agree about not overemphasizing fuel economy xL/100km or in the US xG/100miles is a better measurement of the car’s frugality or lack thereof. In the United States we like big numbers; 3.5 liter engines are better than 2.5 liter engines, 300 hp is better than 200 hp and 40 mpg is better than (read: more desirable) than 30 mpg. Manufacturers use MPG as a marketing thing for the more is better crowd.

      People make perverse decisions based on these numbers. When prices spike people may trade in their 30 mpg midsizer for a 40 mpg compact that doesn’t fit their needs as well because they think that there will be some huge fuel savings.

      At 30 mpg one would need 3.33G/100miles, whereas the 40 mpg car would need 2.5G/100miles. The difference is not huge, but many people can’t figure that out and will make a completely stupid decision to get the highest number possible.

      Over 1,000 miles, the average distance traveled in a month, at current prices $3.39, the difference would be 8.3G * $3.39 = $28.14 or ~$7 a week. It makes more sense to keep the midsizer than it would be to take out a loan on a car where the payment would be much greater.

      B&B, if you want to check my math go ahead, but my argument is that I, at least, would rather have volume/distance traveled because it’s easier to figure out actual consumption.

      • 0 avatar

        If you can’t figure it out with the reciprocal of mpg, you can’t figure it out with gal/mi, which is the same thing. Changing from a performance statistic to a consumption statistic won’t improve anyone’s math skills or common sense.

    • 0 avatar

      IMO amount of fuel / distance is more logical since the ideal is no fuel used at all. In l/100km the ideal number is 0, as in no fuel per 100km. In MPG the ideal is infinite MPG. It’s basically just a difference of “How much fuel do i need to get to X” and “How far can i get with the fuel i have”.

    • 0 avatar

      So how will a 6.8 rating affect your fuel costs vs. 5.7? Get out your calculator – it’s 8-mpg.

      Why would I need a calculator? It’s 1.1 extra liters of fuel used for every 100 km I travel. That’s an extra $1.25 or so per 100 km, or $5 for a 400 km road trip. Or, I could just look at 6.8/5.7 and say that it’s using about 20% more fuel. Pretty easy to work with.

      Cars of similar size and performance consume roughly equal amounts of fuel.

      Yep. For a recent Motor Trend test of compact cars, I did some calculations and found that vehicle curb weight was a better indicator of the real world mileage they achieved in their testing than the EPA ratings.

  • avatar

    Per the EPA 2012 data, (, here’s the unadjusted EPA numbers for the Dodges referenced… they’re quite close to the Canadian numbers.
    Dodge Avenger I4/4AT: 26.5 city, 41.5 highway
    Dodge Charger V6/5AT; 22.2 city, 37.5 highway
    Dodge Challenger V6: 22.2 city, 37.5 highway

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that, as far as the test procedure is concerned, this car does get 58 highway MPG in US gallons. It sure looks to me that the Canadian test procedure is very close to the original EPA procedure which has been revised a few times, but is still used with fudge-factors and additional tests to determine the window-sticker numbers.

    • 0 avatar

      The original EPA test were done by exactly duplicating a standard route that was average in LA back in the early 70s.. they probably matched the results drivers obtained in that era.. acceleration is equivalent to a 0-60 of 18 secs and 48mph was the highest speed. Those raw numbers have a fudge factor of about 30% before they get on the Monroney sticker.. there have been 2 corrections to that fudge factor, and they do driver surveys to come up with the correction.. perhaps they are due for a 3rd correction.

    • 0 avatar

      pstchett, I didn’t check your math, but does that include the difference between imperial gallons and US gallons?

      If one car went 58 miles on a US gallon and one went 58 miles on an imperial gallon, then obviously the tests cannot be the same. Wouldn’t the first car be more like 69.7mpg when converted to imperial?

      Maybe the numbers are just a coincidence? I think someone said the correction factor from CAFE to current was in the neighborhood of 20% (I apologize if I read that wrong), so is how much larger an imperial gallon is than a US gallon.

      • 0 avatar

        Damn, those are imperial gallons? The Canadian fuel economy test is even further out to lunch than the original EPA test was, then. Given that, it sure looks to me that the relationship between Canadian and US-unadjusted tests is about the same as the Imperial/US gallon relationship, i.e. the Canadian test is more optimistic than the EPA by about that percentage. I think we can still compare the numbers and show that 58 MPG on the Canadian test is possible and be roughly equivalent to a car which gets 58 MPG on the unadjusted US test, which works out to about 40 MPG on the US window sticker.

      • 0 avatar

        Correct the Canadian figures all manufacturers publish are based on Imperial Gallons as opposed to the smaller US Gallons. Since there are more litres in an imperial gallon, the MPG rating is indeed higher.

        That’s not to say the Canadian tests are outdated. They’ll be moving to EPA like testing in 2015.

  • avatar

    For the purposes of quick calculations, a US gallon is almost exactly 5/6 the size of the Canadian gallon. The exact calculation is 231 cubic inches for a US gallon (the old British wine measure) and 277.4 cubic inches for the Canadian (Imperial) gallon.

    The Imperial gallon is the only British measure that has any logic to it at all. One Imperial gallon of water weighs ten pounds. As kids growing up in England in the ’50s, it was drilled into us: “a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter.” 8 pints in a gallon, so 10 pounds per gallon.

    As for gas consumption, logic would dictate gallons per mile – that’s a measure of consumption, so litres per kilometre makes sense. Since a kilometre is short, and a litre is big, the boys at SI decided to make consumption litres per 100 kilometres. I find it convenient, as it directly relates to my cost. If gas is $1.30 a litre, and my car averages about 10l/100km, it’ll cost $13 to drive a hundred klicks.

    Speaking of which, I record every fillup. My car was rated at 11.9 city, 8.4 highway. Overall, it has averaged almost exactly 10.30 over 67,000 km, including remote start warmups in winter, as I hate cold cars, and am willing to waste gas for added comfort. The onboard computer is almost dead accurate, so I know within a litre what it’ll take to fill it up. Convenient. Winter gas is about 10% worse than summer gas for consumption, and you can tell when it changes. That 10.3 l/100km is almost exactly 27.5 mpg Canadian, 22.8 US. Car is an 08 Legacy GT. Over 155,000 km, my ’99 Impreza averaged 9.82 l/100km, despite weighing 300 kg less, under identical conditions, so it was a guzzler by comparison.

    I have managed to get the Legacy GT to show a steady 5.6 l/100km at 65 kph on a flat road for several kilometres, and that equates to 50 mpg Canadian.1750 rpm. Gets boring quickly.

    As for Transport Canada, the term “waffling buffoons” adequately describes the outfit.

    Note to US readers: I have used international spelling for litre and kilometre. A meter is a gauge, such as speedometer or voltmeter to us foreigners.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • sayahh: I don’t like how Mitsu and Chevy reused the Eclipse and Trailblazer names, respectively. I, however,...
  • sayahh: So are you in the “the modern Dodge Charger doesn’t have two-doors like the General Lee, so it...
  • Lou_BC: That is very true. People complain about lost jobs but then trundle off to Walmart for cheap chinesium and a...
  • Lou_BC: @Aurtur – yup. Bring in the “temps”. Saputo dairy was busted for bringing in Mexicans and...
  • Lou_BC: (Now)Billionaire Jimmy Pattison when he owned a Chevy dealership would fire the lowest selling salesman every...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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