By on August 13, 2013

Bourke Engine (click for animation)

In a comment to my post last month about Professor Gary Waissi’s new piston engine that has no connecting rods between the pistons and the crankshaft, one of our readers asked about similarities to the Bourke Engine, invented by Russell Bourke. Based on the diagrams of the Bourke motor, that seemed like a good question, so I asked Prof. Waissi about it. I received his reply today. Waissi said that while there were similarities between his engine and Bourke’s, there were also substantial differences, resulting in the Bourke engine having more operating friction. Dr. Waissi also said that he hoped to have a two-cylinder prototype of his own design assembled and running by the end of this year. Waissi’s response after the jump.

Thank you for the message, and for writing the article. I am very familiar with the Bourke engine and concept; a Scotch Yoke engine. A number of similarities, including aligned cylinders, and connected piston structure. The main difference is, as clearly shown in the animation, that the Bourke Engine uses a “conventional” crankshaft with “yoke”. There is no “yoke” in the Waissi Engine, because the crankshaft is like a camshaft (a straight shaft).

The Bourke engine does also not use hydrodynamic lubrication in-between the bearing rings, which does not, in my estimation, reduce the friction, but increases it. Both engines, the Bourke and the Waissi Engine, have only primary piston forces (because of no piston rods), and therefore are simpler to balance.  In the Waissi Engine design the crankshaft is actually like a camshaft — a straight shaft; and an off-set camdisk, and a hydrodynamically lubricated bearing ring. The bearing ring has a significantly larger surface area (between the inside surface of the ring and the disk outer perimeter) distributing the piston force to a larger area resulting into a lower bearing pressure.

Another advantage of the Waissi Engine is manufacturability — straight shaft vs. crankshaft — especially with multi-cylinder engines; you can use the same cam(crank)shaft for engines with different piston strokes, by just changing the disk (as the stroke depends on the disk off-set). For example in an F-1 engine the stroke is 40 mm; andf for “regular” engines the stroke varies widely (60- 70- 80- 90- 100 mm). With regular engine designs, including the Bourke engine, for every variation you need a new crankshaft. With the Waissi Engine from a F-1 engine to a pick-up truck engine you need just one.

I am currently working on a two-cylinder version of the Waissi Engine. My plan includes to get a testable version running before the end of the year. (A two-cylinder version, because it is cheaper to build).

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

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

33 Comments on “Waissi Engine Update: The Differences Between Waissi and Bourke Engines...”

  • avatar

    It’s hard to believe that, in the 100+ year history of the ICE, major engine manufacturers haven’t already considered every possible design variation, including designs similar to the Bourke and Waissi. Are these guys truly breaking new ground or just trying to sell snake oil?

    • 0 avatar

      They might have considered a design and realized that computer, metallurgy and machine tool technology wasn’t advanced enough to build it reliably and at a reasonable cost at the time.

      • 0 avatar

        Then what’s the point of these little-known engineers creating models? Their models focus on principle of operation not manufacturability. Surely they haven’t unlocked they key manufacturing secrets that decades of massive R&D budgets couldn’t.

        • 0 avatar

          “Then what’s the point of these little-known engineers creating models?”

          Ask the Wright brothers.

          “Surely they haven’t unlocked they key manufacturing secrets that decades of massive R&D budgets couldn’t.”

          No, but a solution could have been rejected as too expensive 20 years ago and at some point someone has to say, “Hum, with the that new casting technology, maybe that idea can finally me maufactured cheapy.”

    • 0 avatar

      To wit; Wankel. Still a niche after 50+ years.
      In fact, if you can identify 5 current production engines, I’ll mail you $5.

      And there have been comers and goers through the years.
      Steam, hit-and-miss engines, turbines, hydrolic cetripedal torque storage, … But because they failed (sometimes by design) we don’t look back to them in the same light as we look forward to the Waissi.

      • 0 avatar

        I briefly owned a used Ro80 during the seventies when I was stationed in Germany with the US military and loved how smooth it was. But it had seal problems and I could not afford to have it resealed.

        When we came back to the States I considered a Mazda Rotary but reality kicked in because my wife needed something to commute 75 miles to college with every day. IOW something cheap and easily replaceable when it wore out.

        All these new engine designs are truly noteworthy but it is really difficult to improve on the current four-stroke designs. And like others have already written, how well do these new designs stack up against the tried and proven current mainstream designs?

        I liked the Chrysler Turbine cars too, but there was no economical way to mass-produce those. Kinda like the EV/PEH/Hybrids of today.

  • avatar

    Good job Dr. Waissi, have a test engine running for a 100 hours and then we’ll see.

    Most of these new design all have wonderful dynamic behavior and are more fuel efficient, on paper. Most of these fail at wearing out very quickly. Hopefully Ronnie keeps us updated.

  • avatar

    Of course this is just my opinion, but inventing a new solution to a problem within an engine doesn’t mean it’s a new engine so long as the part about how the engine does its thing doesn’t change.

    Using fluid bearings instead of ball bearings, lubricant injection instead of a bath, camless valves instead of cam-actuated valves, etc., don’t change an engine. From the description here, I would say he improved an existing engine, not invented a new one.

    If he invented a new thermodynamic cycle, a new firing sequence, fuel delivery, etc., then I could see calling it a new engine, but removing a yoke & changing a wear surface doesn’t cut it to me.

    • 0 avatar

      LeMansteve and redav – – –

      Yeah, I agree.

      Many versions of reciprocating motion have already been assembled into engines during the past 150 years – just look at the patents. And all of them use fuel to generate motion with between 25 and 30% efficiency.

      The current standard ICE has many advantages by now, including well understood operation, endurance, and ease of control. If an ICE inventor came up with a “game-changer” that got, say, 40% efficiency or more from an ICE, then that would be a breakthrough. Of course, coupling an ICE with electric motors may be one “cheating” way to do just that: it’s called a hybrid. The LaFerrari comes to mind: the EM is an adjunct power source for the ICE, the primary power source, running all the time.


      • 0 avatar

        “40% efficiency or more from an ICE”

        There is an engine that fits this description: it’s called a Diesel

        • 0 avatar

          TR4 – – –

          Thanks for the correction. I thought diesels were hitting about 35%, but meant my comments on ICE efficiency as applied only to gasoline. It’s good to know that diesels are now about 40%!


          • 0 avatar

            Motor Trend had some videos recently of triple compound turbodiesel bro trucks putting around 2k lb-ft of torque to all four wheels. The next day they got 20mpg.

            I shat. I had no idea diesel had come so far.

      • 0 avatar

        Mazda’s Skyactiv gas motors have higher compression, which improves thermal efficiency and produces better fuel economy. I’m not sure what the efficiency rating is, but I would guess that it must be something close to 35-40%.

        Diesels get more MPG largely due to the fact that the fuel is heavier (more energy dense), although the higher compression and use of turbos are also factors. Internal combustion engines in their present form are fairly inefficient, no matter what kind of fuel that they use.

        • 0 avatar
          Brian P

          The diesel-fuel energy-content advantage is only about 10%. Diesel engines can be substantially more efficient than spark-ignition engines. Higher compression is one factor, but the other one is that the diesel engine is unthrottled and therefore has lower pumping losses. (Modern emission-controlled diesels often do, in fact, have throttles – but what isn’t drawn in as air, is drawn in as recirculated exhaust. It’s still “unthrottled” from the thermodynamic point of view.) The VW TDI engines have a thermal efficiency of around 42% at their best-efficiency point. The Toyota Prius Atkinson-cycle gasoline engine is around 37% and that is at the cost of performance – which that car makes up for with the hybrid system.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    The Wankel would thus fit in the description of a “new” engine.

  • avatar
    Piston Slap Yo Mama

    The last time Herr Schreiber posted on this topic a large number of wanna-be “engineers” immediately heaped their criticism on the Waissi ICE. I’ll never understand people who have to chip in their .02¢ then ask for change. I’m taking a wait & see attitude for results from the first prototypes and wish him all the best. Kudos to the person who pointed out that this isn’t a “boxer” engine, and thanks for finally making it clear what constitutes a boxer vs. a flat vee.

    • 0 avatar

      So then, how do you feel about this v. a “Wave” engine? You know, the current one under development that’s a PDE (pulse detonation engine), not the one from 20 years ago that was an incredibly complex assemblage of rolling chambers. The current one done by Michigan State and Warsaw Institute of Tech, supposedly has a running proto, and has actually been funded to the tune of a coupla million by DoE.

      What about the other dozen or so ‘revolutionary!’ designs out there, all vying for some cash? Just like Waissi’s they’re nothing but a rehash of stuff we’ve been seeing for 40+ years.

      Those ‘wanna-be engineers’ often *are* engineers, and dismiss Waissi and it’s ilk for a couple of reasons. Firstly, most really *are* all hopeful that someone will build the ‘next big thing’. Really. But, you know that definition of insanity, that involves doing the same old thing and expecting different results? Secondly, we’ve seen the Waissi’s design elements before, we know how it will fail if (and only if) anyone is crazy enough to fund a build. What generally happens with these things is they make it to a cool 3D model in a computer, and then nobody funds it. Not because they lack vision, but because they do what has been done a hundred times.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong looking for a completely different answer, seemingly out of left field, and at odds with all convention. That’s where the breakthroughs happen. But when looking at something as well understood as the piston/crank ICE, there are no more breakthroughs to be had – just incremental improvements which were all thought of long-ago. They just get wider implementation now that the price has dropped on the materials and/or tech.

      • 0 avatar

        Thanks for reminding me of the Wave engine. I put an email in to Dr. Müller at Michigan State, asking him for a status update on the wave rotor engine he was developing. I’ve been hoping to hear more about that Wave engine out of MSU but other than a splash of publicity a couple of years ago, I haven’t heard anything about it. It seems to be an elegant invention.

        I’m not sure it’s appropriate to refer to Dr. Waissi or his engine with a word like “ilk”. He’s an engineering professor himself and he’s used what appear to this non-engineer as sound engineering principles to design and explain his concept. Clearly he knows he has to build a running prototype to prove that concept, and he’s doing so out of his own pocket. I can think of three or four new engines whose backers have seemed to be more interested in getting funding than in building a functional prototype. By now I would have expected Scuderi to have one of their motors in a working car. As he said in his email that I quoted, he hopes to prove the concept by next year.

        While his background is in statistics and systems engineering, not mechanical engineering, he’s still on the faculty of Arizona State’s engineering school and while I’m not a fan of the argument from authority or credentialism, the guy deserves some credibility.

        Call me a romantic, but I find stories like Waissi and Lonny Doyle’s engines to be great stories. Also, if there is one industry where naysayers are often proven wrong, it’s the car biz.

        I was talking with someone at Audi today and he was asking me about diesels in luxury cars. I said that the conventional wisdom was that American luxury buyers might associate diesel with truck stops and smelly soot. He told me that they had to redo their production planning because the take rate on the diesel Q7 was about 40%, twice what they originally anticipated. They made a mistake by listening to the naysayers.

        If David Buick, Henry Ford and Ranson Olds had listened to the naysayers, and they had plenty of them, the world would be a different place.

        • 0 avatar

          Ronnie I’d wager you’ve been a car guy for at least 4 decades at least.

          That said, we’ve both seen hundreds of ‘miracle engines’ from the pages of C&D, MW, PopSci, Mech Ill, (not to mention a dozen trade rags and SAE conferences in the pre-web days). They all played out almost exactly according to script. Which is what this one will.

          If I had a dollar for every story of grossly unfounded optimism when it came to a fanciful ICE designs by the ignorati, I could throw you a million and it wouldn’t bother my bank balance in the least.

          Honest to golly, I really *want* to see a real breakthrough, but as it stands, I have yet to see anything me and my teenage motorhead friends didn’t sketch on a JrHS- cannabis-fueled-what-if-dude-binge. Some of which we actually even built, with the aid of indulgent aerospace engineer parental units. I’m no credentialist either, if anything, I’m anti-credential. But I also know the flights of fantasy violating well-proven science of a non-ME (degreed or not) when I see them.

          Save for the dime-a-dozen-$50K-450SL, pretty much every Benz I ever saw in the MW was a diesel in the ’70s/’80s. Perhaps your ‘normal’ meter is different than mine, I’ve just never seen old money adverse to driving the cheapest to run status symbol possible. Sure there’s a Fezza and a Porker in the garage, but the Benz E/S Diesel is the daily driver.

          As you know, I’m no a Luddite by a long shot. I used to constantly harp on things that still aren’t widely deployed. They will be, but the curve is still catching up. I just am one of the naysayers when I’ve seen it a dozen times before and know the design flaws just by looking at it. If you look really hard, I know you’ll see them too.

          If I’m wrong, I shall take my lashes with humility, and a large serving of crow.

  • avatar

    Ronnie, thanks for sharing that.

    As an engineer, I think both designs show promise. It may be that each excels in different niches of operation, such as low-speed/high torque vs high-speed, or perhaps in specific fuel consumption vs specific power output.

    Keep us updated.

    • 0 avatar


      I find this sort of thing fascinating, but real numbers and a realistic assessment of the design’s potential are important.

      Also, big thanks for asking the inventor. Going right to the source is great!

  • avatar

    The topic of strange IC engines has been ongoing on EngineeringTips forum and the tecnical section of Autosport forums for years, which renewed my interest.

    The Australians have been at it the most. The Beare 6 cycle engine and the Revetec are by far the most promising and have been for some time. These are actual working engines. The Beare is probably the better concept. The Revetec is more concerned with friction reduction and reveals the usual non-understanding of thermodynamics and crank angle obsession that this Waissi engine does.

    Plus, unfortunately for Waissi, the Revetec uses a cam drive crank as well, and has a decent animation on site. I’m a mechanical engineer myself, but soon found out that it’s the thermodynamics that matter most. Offset cranks to get a bit more torque have been featured on Honda engines for years – they are enamored of an 8mm offset for some reason. The extreme is 14mm in the current BMW N20 2l turbo.

    I suspect that purely mechanical, rather than thermodynamic improvements to internal combustion, will pop up from here till time’s end, certainly as long as the old wives’ tale that long stroke engines have more torque than short stroke ones is part of popular culture. Working on PV diagrams is just so, well, nerdy and most engineers found it all too difficult to conceptually grasp. Can’t say I’m better than average but smart enough to realize when I met an expert who really does, that the mechanical route to improvement is essentially a waste of time.

    You won’t get more than a few percent improvement from wacky mechanical arrangements, or making bearings slimmer and smaller in diameter or making slack piston rings of unobtanium new alloy. Heck, just going DI blew all this friction reduction improvements out the window (and brought its own new intake and manifold sludge problems). The Honda K24 engine went from 166 to 184 lb-ft torque with DI in the new Accord. Try getting that much improvement by purely mechanical means. Not happening.

    Luckily for all those who like looking at weird engines, there is a part of an electronics (yes electronics!) website that attempts to list and describe them all. An eccentric Englishman runs the site:

    There’s even a section on cam drive engines. Also, if the OPOC boys had spent a few days here instead of merely updating the Yunkers opposed piston engine, they could have saved some millions of investor money.

    The Bourke engine is the biggest scam of all! Give some ol’ boys a toolkit, some metal scraps, and an understanding of how a Scotch Yoke works from using an old lathe, and hey presto, a new legend for the incredulous was born.

    The only modern genius at mechanical linkages I know of, in that he can dream one up in an afternoon, and produce an animation for the web the next day in between sips of very strong Greek coffee is Manoulis at:

    That site will grind your gears for you!

  • avatar
    Brian P

    Mechanical engineer here. Spare-time engine builder, too.

    The failings of the modern piston engine are largely not in the way the combustion pressure gets turned into shaft rotation (piston-conrod-crankshaft in a normal engine). They are in the combustion process and in the thermodynamic cycle.

    A mechanism that makes the intake/compression stroke mechanically shorter than the power/exhaust stroke would be interesting, since this would mechanically achieve the Atkinson cycle that a number of current piston engines emulate by intentionally using sub-optimal intake valve timing events, thus theoretically reducing friction and pumping losses a little. And … it’s been done AND it is in production today. Forum won’t allow external links, but Google search “Honda EXlink engine” and learn more.

    A mechanism that varies the stroke length of the piston in order to vary the torque output of the engine, rather than throttling the intake air supply, would be an interesting one, too. Again, many modern engines are emulating this by playing with the valve timing. And there’s nothing stopping variable valve timing to be implemented on Honda’s EXlink system – the cylinder head of that engine is conventional.

    Both of these would allow the mechanical process to be better aligned to the thermodynamic cycle.

    Changing the means by which piston motion is converted to rotary motion, without achieving either of the above objectives, is a hand-waving exercise. There is not much friction in the con-rod-to-crank interface. There’s more between the piston and rings and cylinder walls … so use long rods and use a desaxe arrangement – or EXlink – to cut down the side thrust forces.

  • avatar

    I just want to say that this comment thread demonstrates why TTAC is such a great site. TTAC is where people who really know about cars and the car industry hang out. I don’t think there’s another general interest car site that has the combination of serious enthusiasts and genuinely informed experts that TTAC has. I can’t remember the last time I saw the word “thermodynamics” at another car site. We have to be pretty careful because our readers will know it if we’re BSing.

    People in the auto industry and the part of the publishing industry that covers cars pay close attention to what the writers *and commenters* here say. From my perspective dealing with people at the car companies, TTAC is taken seriously. I’ve been fortunate to have written for publications whose names can open pretty big doors. I used to say that TTAC punches above its weight. Now that I’ve worked for some heavyweights, I have to say that TTAC not only merits inclusion in that weight class, it actually deserves a class of its own. Sui generis.

    I’m not an engineer and I’m often faced with having to describe for readers something that I don’t fully understand. I like science but I’m more of a biology guy than physics. I also don’t understand much about finance. My ego doesn’t like to make mistakes and writing in public can strip you bare. Knowing that many of our readers work in the auto industry, in engineering, finance and other areas, forces me to work hard to understand the topics in question, or at least present them accurately.

    Maybe as we go forward, perhaps we can start doing some kind of live streaming video or audio with people like Prof. Waissi so that the Best & Brightest can participate more directly in the conversation. I’m sure that it would be fascinating and worthwhile for all parties involved.

    • 0 avatar

      As much I respect what you’ve done in auto journalism, (and you have done things I never will do 1% of…) we both know that Waissi will never show up here. Or anywhere else remotely challenging to defend his con, err, ‘work’. This isn’t Nikola Tesla having Marconi claim the invention of radio, it’s some putz telling us about the “novel” idea of nailing baby-jar lids to the floor joists and using the jars as a storage medium. His dad invented it, dontcha know…

      Anymore than Bricklin, Agassi, Musk or any of a dozen other filthy scumbag hustlers I know of (having the job security of NOT being an auto-journo) am free to name and shame.

      Naturally, any of them are free to “call me” on my indictments. Interestingly, since I’ve already called all of the above captioned scammers out directly when they dared speak in public, I know what they’ll do when confronted by someone who actually understands what they do. They’ll run and hide.

  • avatar

    The only differences I see between the Wasai and the Bourke are the diameter of the crankpin journal and the structural method of connecting the two opposed pistons. Whether you you use anti-friction (Bourke) or fluid film (Wasai) is moot. If i were to bet on which is lower friction, I would put my money on Bourke. A problem that both these engines have is balance. Unlike an opposed twin crank engine, the pistons do not “box”. Instead they shuffle back and forth. Yes, you can put a balance weight on the crank/eccentric to oppose the reciprocating mass, but then you introduce an unopposed reciprocating mass acting perpendicular to the piston. Some designs of these types of engines use two pairs of pistons in a cross type arrangement to deal with this. But then you will still have the second order (moment) shaking forces to deal with. I agree with the commenters who pointed out that this mechanical fiddling doesn’t do anything to improve the thermal efficiency. What is needed is something that turns more of the fuel energy into mechanical work instead of lost heat. The other area is part throttle efficiency, which is dismal for spark ignition engines.

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      Achieving better part throttle efficiency is THE most important engine-related way to improve fuel consumption in real-world driving. Changing the way the back-and-forth is translated into round-and-round does nothing whatsoever to affect this … unless you can somehow vary the amount of back-and-forth instead of throttling the air supply. Very difficult to achieve in a manner that has sufficient mechanical soundness. Neither of the concepts discussed appear to do that.

      By the way, there is one reasonably easy way to filter out the mechanical concepts for translating back-and-forth to round-and-round to see whether they can have long-term durability: do they rely on surface contact between adjacent moving parts, or line contact (or even worse, point contact)? A piston has surface contact with a wrist pin. The wrist pin has surface contact with the con-rod. The con-rod has surface contact with the crank pin. The crank pin has surface contact with the crankcase. This allows the (very substantial) forces involved to be distributed in a way that makes the stress manageable. If there is line contact involved anywhere – rollers, cam lobes, etc. – that is a potential weak point.

      Yes, I realize that valves in a normal engine are operated by a camshaft with line contact to the followers … but the forces at the valve springs are orders of magnitude smaller than the piston-to-crankshaft forces! And there ARE production engines out there that have valvetrain-durability issues because this stress point was taken a wee bit too far.

      There are production engines that use rolling-element bearings (line contact at the rollers) on an otherwise-normal crankshaft … I own one. But the piston displacement on that engine is 124.7 cubic centimeters. The piston diameter is smaller than a credit card. And needle rollers have a multitude of line contacts, not just one.

      • 0 avatar

        Camshafts are gone in the next 10 years (except for GM which is owned by the Chinese…). They’ll be pushing the same tech that their Neanderthal brothers at H-D peddle, to the same part of the Bell Curve…

        Valve actuation will be 100% electric/electro-hydraulic, on a quasi-desmo system.

        The current, primitive, state-of-the-shelf has already eliminated gas-engine throttle plates a decade+ ago with BMW’s Valvetronic.

        Every ignition event will have not only optimal fuel and spark timing, but optimal valve timing as well.

        • 0 avatar

          That’s easy to say, but harder to achieve.

          I thought that electronically actuated valves made sense when in first learned what an ECU was when I was a kid. And I heard a news report of an engineering team that had actually built one a few years later (early 1990s).

          But, their prototype only ran at low RPM, and durability wasn’t even discussed.

          Anyway, I agree with you that replacing a heavy mechanical camshaft with limited tunability with electronics seems like an excellent idea. But excellent/obvious ideas that haven’t been implemented are often harder than they look.

          Why will the next 10 years be different than the last 20 years for electronically controlled valves?

          On the other hand, all of this may become irrelevant for me personally, as soon as I can afford an EV.

          • 0 avatar

            Very true, it’s easy to see the future – it’s just hard to attach an accurate date to it…

            Here’s my case for why I see them coming in rather less than a decade on serial production vehicles. Check out my points and then make your own call.

            1. It works. F1 cars have had various pneumatic and/or electro-hydraulic hybrid valve operators since the mid-1980s. Sure it needed development and it got it. Straight electric is still not quite there, but there’s things afoot. Easy diagram…


            2. There’s a ton of folks actively working on this with cubic feet of cash. Here’s just one…


            3. Save for coatings, alloys, and treatments, fully controllable valve actuation is one of the final frontiers for the ICE. As regs tighten, it just has to happen – there are no options.

            4. Honestly, people with way more resources than me have been at this since the mid 70s. My friends and I modded a Briggs lawnmower engine to run with no cam on hand-wound solenoids and the stone-age analog electronics we could afford in the early 80s – even though we knew we weren’t going to be the ones who did it, we knew that it would happen eventually. (talk about cobbled together opto-electronic triggers and breadboards!)

            It’s really that the tech, computing power, and cheap manufacturing have caught up with the ideas that many had 40 years ago.

            Much like active suspension (which has been in process for 2 decades at Bose) it’s just waiting for the prices to drop and the market to not only demand it, but require it.

  • avatar

    After three years, the inventor couldn’t afford to renew the patent, which resigns this idea to oblivion, like many others.
    I’m afraid it takes $millions to even build a prototype and patent it. I should know, because I’m in the process of doing that very thing myself.
    I can never understand why people make their ideas public before they are able to substantiate their claims with real numbers taken off the dynamometer.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Art Vandelay: Yeah those guys that wrote the Declaration would have never had political discussions online. And yeah,...
  • EBFlex: “But this is the pain we must endure to create a green, more sustainable economy that welcomes all who...
  • Jeff S: @Art–You tell me what Skye is referring to because I don’t see what the hidden meaning is? I...
  • Skippity: Maybe they just got a good deal and their credit scores are fine.
  • Jeff S: @CaddyDaddy–Have a Happy Fourth and God Bless you and your family.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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