By on September 1, 2015

2016 Audi Q3 Exterior-002

2016 Audi Q3 Prestige

2.0-liter, DOHC I-4, CVVT (200 horsepower @ 5,100-6,000 rpm; 207 lbs-ft @ 1,700-5,000 rpm)

6-speed Tiptronic automatic

20 city/28 highway/23 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)

20.2 mpg (Observed, MPG)

Tested Options: Prestige Trim, Quattro AWD, Sport Package

Base Price:
As Tested:


* Prices include $925 destination charge.

Audi’s Q3 isn’t a new vehicle by any stretch. It was first launched in 2011 but didn’t make it to America until the 2015 model year. That’s because the Q3 plays in a segment that’s new to us — the even-smaller compact luxury crossover. This form factor isn’t new to the rest of the world, but until Land Rover brought the Range Rover Evoque to America and BMW followed up with the X1, there wasn’t a real focus on small luxury soft-roaders.

With crossovers being the latest craze and every luxury brand looking to move down-market to capture fresh young buyers, it was only a matter of time till Mercedes and Audi joined the party with the GLA and the Q3. With a “low” $33,700 starting MSRP, the baby Audi is the more practical counterpart to Audi’s sharp-looking A3 sedan. Although CamCord shoppers have to give up a great deal of room to upgrade to the A3, the Q3 has the potential to be a more sensible option.

Outside, the Q3 plays the same farm girl card as the majority of the Audi lineup. The wholesome sheetmetal is attractive, but completely devoid of the dramatic styling cues that grace the new GLA. Closer inspection reveals that the headlamps and grille design are different from the 2015 Q5. That’s because the Q3 was one of the first Audis to wear the brand’s latest front end design. The sharper lines, crisper angles and new headlamp design can also be seen on the next generation Q5. The look is fresh and instantly recognizable, but some may call it is so restrained that it is almost boring. 

At 172.6 inches long, the Q3 is nearly a foot shorter than the X3, Q5, NX or XC60. That means the Q3 is aimed squarely at the BMW X1, Range Rover Evoque and Mercedes GLA. Unlike the GLA and X1, the Q3’s side profile screams miniaturized SUV, not jacked up hatchback.

The rear design is 8/10ths Q5 despite being totally unrelated. Unlike most crossovers, the tail lamps are housed solely on the hatch itself. You’d think that this would allow the opening to be larger, but access is somewhat limited much like its bigger brother Q5. Total cargo room suffers more than you would think since Audi decided to give the rear window a more dramatic rake than on its other crossovers.

2016 Audi Q3 Dashboard

Like the exterior, the interior design is simple almost to the point of being plain. Although the A3 came to the USA before the Q3, the latter houses an older design and that explains why the interior looks more like the rest of the Audi line up, not the minimalist design we see in the A3. Our model didn’t have the optional wood trim ($350) but I recommend it as it helps break up the black-on-black-on-black interior in our model. Also on the must-have list are the optional sport seats that add extending seat bottom cushions. Audi’s usual attention to detail is easily seen in the interior where fit and finish is notably higher than the mass-market Escape, CR-V or Tiguan.

In an unusual move, Audi makes 12-way power front seats standard and equips them with 4-way power lumbar support. This puts front seat adjustability above the GLA, which skimps on passenger seat comfort to keep the price low. Also surprising, leather seating surfaces are standard while most luxury brands have moved to imitation leather as the base material. The optional sport seats are the most comfortable seats in this segment, according to my back, besting the BMW and Mercedes. Helping my marriage out during the week I had the Q3, the passenger seat is just as comfortable (eliminating the complaints I received when I tested the RDX and GLA). Like Audi’s A3, the Q3 lacks driver’s seat memory, an odd omission when you can find that feature on less expensive Kias, not to mention the Range Rover, BMW and Mercedes. Heck, Mercedes even gives the front passenger standard 3 position seat memory.

Thanks to the Q3’s upright profile, the rear seats are surprisingly accommodating. Although combined front and rear legroom figures are lower than the Q5 and the overall vehicle is smaller than the larger Audi, the Q3 was better able to handle a rearward facing child seat behind a front passenger. The difference is down to the shape of the Q3’s dash which allows the right front seat to move farther forward, freeing up more room in the back. Headroom was equally impressive despite the panoramic moonroof. BMW is claiming a hair more room in the 2016 X1 which will mean the Audi and BMW are the best options if you plan on carrying folks in the rear. On the other hand, the GLA has a more cramped rear bench and my head touched the ceiling unless I leaned inboard. When it comes to cargo hauling, the Q3’s hold is 33-percent smaller than the next size crossover and right about the same as your average midsize sedan.

2016 Audi Q3 Dashboard-004

The Germans have cornered the market in controller-knob based infotainment systems since BMW first introduced iDrive in 2001. Since then, BMW and Audi have been in a gadget arms race. Taken as a whole, MMI isn’t as intuitive as iDrive with more confusing menus and illogical button placement. While I’m sure you would get used to it over time, even after a week I found myself needing to stare at the array of buttons for way too long to find what I needed. If you have another Audi in the family, the Q3’s MMI button placement will take even more getting used to since they dropped it in the dash, not the center console. On the flip side, this means you’re less likely to spill your drink on your MMI controller.

On the flip side, MMI has probably one of the most advanced feature sets on the market thanks to their well-executed Google integration. While iDrive allows you to search for Google results (as do a number of other systems), MMI takes it a step further and overlays your traditional map images with Google satellite imagery and even allows you to zoom in and view Google Street View images so you can “creep” your neighbors. On the down side, the Google map function requires a $15-$30 a month subscription after the first few years for the built-in cellular modem, and the system has troubles downloading maps fast enough when traveling at freeway speeds, leaving you with a blank screen at times.

Although navigation and the Google Map love is optional, the large LCD and iPod integration are standard, things not found in the 2015 Mercedes GLA. Likely due to the Q3’s standard LCD and upcoming 2016 X1, Mercedes has announced the 2016+ GLA will get a 7-inch LCD standard.

2016 Audi Q3 Engine-001

Nestled sideways under the hood is one of VW/Audi’s ubiquitous 2.0-liter, turbocharged, four-cylinder engines. Despite having the latest in direct injection and variable valve timing tech, the engine is a little short on twist. Output comes in at 200 horsepower and 207 lb-ft of torque. This is essentially the same as the related Volkswagen Tiguan, but notably lower than the X1 (228 hp/258 lb-ft), Evoque (240 hp/250 lb-ft) or the GLA (208 hp/258 lb-ft). This is also lower than the nearly identical 2.0-liter engine in the Q5, which produces 220 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque in 2015 and 245 hp, 273 lb-ft in the upcoming next generation Q5.

In order to keep costs down, American bound Q3 models ditch Audi’s 7-speed dual clutch for a more traditional 6-speed Tiptronic automatic. This means that in addition to being down on power, the Q5 is short on gears. Although 6-speeds is the norm in the mass-market segment, the GLA has a 7-speed DCT, the X1 uses an 8-speed and the Evoque a 9-speed. While the engine is partly to blame, the lack of gears has a distinct impact on fuel economy and acceleration. Despite being heavier, producing more power, and being faster to 60, the larger Q5 2.0T nets the same EPA combined score of 23 mpg in both front-wheel and all-wheel drive models. That’s behind the 24 mpg rating for the Evoque, 27 mpg for the 2015 X1 and significantly lower than the 29 mpg delivered by the GLA 250. In a week of mixed driving, our Q3 averaged under 21 mpg.

2016 Audi Q3 Instrument Cluster

Out on the road, the first thing you need to know is that the rear wheel drive 2015 BMW X1 is not long for this world. While you may find them on dealer lots now, between the time I had the Q3 and me writing this review BMW announced the new FWD-based X1 will be arriving in the fall. This means two things. First, if you want a small luxury crossover with tail-happy RWD dynamics, you need to hurry. Second, TTAC hasn’t driven the new X1 so it’s not possible to comment on it in an intelligent fashion, but we can make some educated assumptions.

BMW is making all US-bound X1 models AWD. The logic is likely driving dynamics (like Jaguar with their ill-fated X-Type sedan) and not supposed off-road ability as found in the Land Rover Evoque. That sets the BMW apart from the Audi and Mercedes which both have front-wheel drive. Standard all-wheel drive solves the traction and torque steer problems found in a front driver, but it does little to address the nearly 60/40 weight balance found in most transverse engined vehicles. While the 2016 X1 may be the best balanced in this shoe box sized category, 56/44 (front/rear) is a far cry from BMW’s almost religious dedication to 50/50 weight balanced vehicles. This means that when chucking your 2016 crossover into a corner, the BMW no longer has a neutral handling advantage, and it’s where the strangely wide tires on the Q3 make a surprising difference.

2016 Audi Q3 Exterior-010

BMW shoes the new X1 with 225-width tires, the narrowest in the segment, while the GLA and Evoque start with 235s. Audi starts with 235s on the base model, but the Premium trim and an $800 option on the base model kick the rubber up two sizes to 255/40R18s — two sizes larger than the GLA 45 AMG and three sizes ahead of the X1. While suspension tuning obviously plays a big role in road holding, the Audi starts with more grip and then adds an excellent suspension to boot. Despite the wide 40-series tires, the Q3’s suspension is tuned more compliant than the GLA 250 and lacks the unsettled behavior on broken pavement I noted in the Evoque. While BMW’s FWD models I’ve tested in Europe aren’t as dynamic as their RWD models, they are excellent for front drivers.

Although there is clearly more body roll in the Audi than in the GLA or GLA AMG, the Audi is quite simply more sure footed. Sure, the GLA is lighter at about 3,500lbs vs the Q3’s nearly 3,700, but the 200 pound difference can’t make up for the wider rubber on the Audi. While the 2015 BMW X1 with the M Sport package was the best handling vehicle in this segment by a hair, 2016 transfers the crown to the Q3. (And the difference in 2015 was smaller than X1 buyers would like to admit.)

2016 Audi Q3 Exterior-012

On the downside, the Q3’s heritage does reveal. You see, the Q3 is not based on VW-Audi’s new MQB platform like the current Golf and A3, instead related to the older A3. That shows itself in steering feel. There isn’t any. While the rest of the competition also employs electric power steering, the Q3’s rack is particularly vague, although it is precise and well weighted. Also a problem is the Q3’s acceleration. The Audi’s 0-60 acceleration time clocked in at 7.6 seconds, slower than a Hybrid Camry and about the same as a Honda CR-V. That’s 8/10ths slower than the Evoque, a full second slower than the GLA 250 and 1.3 seconds behind BMW’s claim for the new 2016 X1. That’s before we consider the 2016 Mercedes GLA 45 AMG with its blistering 4.3 second 0-60 sprint thanks to a whopping 375 horsepower.

Although the Q3 is slower and thirstier than the GLA, value, interior accommodations and handling are where the Audi shines. Even though the $33,700 starting price of the Q3 is higher than the 2015 GLA 250 at $31,300, the Audi comes with standard leather seating, dual-zone climate control, xenon headlamps, a panoramic sunroof, keyless entry and keyless go, backup camera, iPod interface, auto dimming mirror, and HD and SiriusXM radio. All of these are extra on the Mercedes. This makes a comparably equipped GLA $3,000 more than the Audi. The Evoque is the most expensive, running $7,000-10,000 more than the Q3, and the 2016 X1 starts at $34,800 and would crest $37,000 when equipped comparably to a base Q3.

2016 Audi Q3 Exterior-011

The surprising thing about the Q3’s pricing structure is how slowly the pricing builds compared to the other luxury options. This makes the Q3 perhaps the easiest upsell from a Hyundai Tucson or a VW Tiguan. Hyundai’s 2016 Tucson Limited ranges from $29,900-34,900 with equipment levels similar to a $33,700-39,000 Q3 making the bump a reasonable $5,000 or so. That’s much narrower than the distance between the Tuscon and GLA 250, which would end up $6,400-10,000 more when comparably equipped. The Range Rover Evoque? The Baby Rover is by far the premium entry and will set you back $15,000-20,000 more than a comparable Hyundai.

I know it sounds odd to compare an Audi and a Hyundai. In most other segments I would say it’s an inappropriate comparison. However, this crop of “inexpensive” luxury vehicles was designed to attract mainstream brand shoppers, so the comparison makes sense. In this light, the Q3 also makes sense. It’s a much easier up-sell over a mainstream crossover while delivering a luxury brand, luxury interior and the best handling in the segment. The X1 and GLA are faster to 60, the Mercedes is arguably a more premium brand and the Evoque offers a level of customization that higher-end luxury shoppers demand, but none of them is as easy of a cross-shop with the top-end mainstream CUVs. For that value proposition and handling performance the Q3 is my favorite entry in this segment, and it’s a new engine and 7-speed DCT away from perfection. Let’s hope someone at Audi is listening.

Audi provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review.

Specifications as tested

0-30: 2.85 Seconds

0-60: 7.6 Seconds

1/4 Mile: 16 Seconds @ 89.2 MPH

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

44 Comments on “2016 Audi Q3 Quattro Review – New-To-You Utility [w/ Video]...”

  • avatar

    My old A3 had more room in the back then this. Bonus for being about a foot lower, manual, more power and better mpg.

  • avatar

    The fuel efficiency seems very low for a car this size. Larger CUVs beat this by a mile and even some 3 row CUVs are breaking 20 mpg.

  • avatar

    It may be marketed for the “mainstream buyer” but when the same demographic realizes the maintenance and repair frequency/cost; the used market for one of these will see some steep depreciation.

    • 0 avatar

      The German Disease.

      Back in 19th Century Europe that referred to homosexuality engendered by Prussian military seclusion and cloistering of young males.

      I’ll use it now for the Fancy Fall-Apart aspect of superficially attractive cars like this one.

  • avatar

    Funny how Alex is selective on comparing autos to the Q3. I would have added the Subaru Forester XT Touring. I would take that over a Q3 or the joke of a car GLA any day.

  • avatar

    Wow, I thought this version of the EA888 was history except for the CC and Tiguan. Don’t get me wrong–it’s an excellent engine in my wife’s 7 year old A3–but seeing it in a 2016 Audi is disappointing.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah I don’t understand why the 220 HP/258 TQ version from the A3 and A4 and GTI didn’t end up in this car with a 6 speed DCT instead of the 6 speed slush box. In Europe the 2016 Q3 got those changes. It’s bizarre that they’d leave this version in the US car.

  • avatar

    “At 172.6 inches long”

    Good grief, it’s 22 inches shorter than my car. These are just too small!

    • 0 avatar

      “These are just too small!”

      No! You get extra garage room for your garden trolls and plastic Santa & reindeer without having to hoik them up into the rafters!

      • 0 avatar

        Oh, well if that’s the customer we want, just put a nice little Buick Encore in the garage instead. Or a base model FWD Trax for Florida.

        I’d rather see a big PGA Tour Town Car in there, and have the gingerbread attached to the car for floating about town.

    • 0 avatar

      For you and I, that’s why they make the A8L. A8 > TownCar.

      Now, why can’t AoA just give us back the A6 Avant? They’ll sell like 83 of them annually. In five years, I can buy one!

      • 0 avatar

        I’m really very put off by their current offerings, save for the A7 and A8. A bunch of 2.0T bull$hit that’s overpriced and not above the competition in interior materials like they used to be.

        I know what an Audi should be like, and this isn’t it. I will console myself with the image below, and take solace in the fact that they still make properly large cars in dark green with 12 cylinders.

        • 0 avatar

          Audi has a long history as a purveyor of rebadged Volkswagens, none of them huge. Remember the Audi 50?

          I’d say large Audis are something of a recent novelty.

          • 0 avatar

            No I don’t remember the Audi 50, how old do you think I am?

            50 x 100? Yes I remember that one, ha.

            But the V8 started out in 1988, and they’ve had a large car since that time – so 27 years. And their large cars are not rebadged VW items.

          • 0 avatar

            The early Audis (50, 60, Fox,…) are a far cry from what they have today. The modern Audi is a top-notch executive car. An A8L definitely has that presence- especially one like the W12 Corey posted.

            The Q3 doesn’t do it for me. It just seems…. weak?

    • 0 avatar

      If it’s too small, they’ll happily sell you a Q5…

  • avatar

    Also, gripes:

    -Silly black paint is -already- swirly and has hazing. That’s bad at this young age.

    -Fake plastic grilles front and back look ridiculous.

    -Can see engine bits from underneath hood line (above headlamp)?! In Audi of old, this would not have passed design testing. This may be the biggest flaw with this vehicle. Audi should always have superior panel gaps and design. ALWAYS.

    -Auto climate control with manual VW-style knobs – what?

    I would compare this car directly to the A4 Allroad, which would seem a better value, no? EDIT: Nope. A4 Allroad starts at $10K more than the Q3. It’s ridiculously overpriced – with nav and heated seats you end up at $48,000. What the hell.

    Would not compare any Audi to a Hyundai, because the customer perception is entirely different, IMO. Even if they’re the same price, the shopper is a very different sort of person (woman).

    • 0 avatar

      Why is this a thing?

    • 0 avatar

      Fake plastic grills? Apposed to real plastic?

      Atleast the Q3 has a solid sounding door when it is shut. I’m no Q3 lover. But you test driven a GLA? Worse then a Camaro. That being said. I would not purchase any of these entry level German rigs.

    • 0 avatar

      “-Silly black paint is -already- swirly and has hazing. That’s bad at this young age.”

      Those are “buffer trails”…not the fault of a poorly applied paint finish but rather the result of an overzealous use of a power buffer by an inexperienced detailer. They push on the buffer too hard when applying rubbing compound and cause the micro-marring in the clearcoat that really shows in direct sunlight.

      It’s tragic when you see this on brand new, high end cars “prepped” for delivery by an 18 year old kid who is the dealership’s detailing dept. because he works cheap.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah, the paint isn’t Audi’s fault. I also can’t get worked up about visible innards above the headlight because you’d only see those from a weird “checking the foglight aim” angle. The issue with both this and the A3 is that the interior materials aren’t rich enough to make the minimalist design work. I’m sure they feel OK to the touch, but they look cheap and uninspired.

      I’d still take this over any of the competitors, though. The X1 makes this look refined, the GLA has a cheap-feeling interior and the proportions are all wrong, and the Evoque just makes me angry. But I agree with the poster above who would rather have a Forester XT for this much money. Faster, more practical, more durable, and only a bit less refined.

      • 0 avatar

        I find the GLA very hideous from the back, and the X1 is too “basic little blob” looking to my eyes, and also appears very dated (just like the X3). The Evoque will be a rock-depreciation joke in a couple years, with various trim and electrical woes.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    An aging entrant into a trendy, overpriced and largely pointless segment. It’s actually nice to see more premium-badged vehicles I have absolutely no desire or envy for, it helps me stay satisfied with my current ride.

    I squinted in disapproval at the mention of the CR-V being about as quick as this thing. But C&D stats confirm it. It could be rather embarrassing to be unable to outpull a 4-pot mommy wagon from a stoplight in your Audi.

  • avatar

    If you really want German luxury, then get a 320i instead. It has more room, 4 years maintenance and will have better resale.

    If you really want a near luxury CUV get a Ford Escape Titanium, Lincoln MKC, Acura RDX.

    All of these options are better than the Q3 which seems to be dated, thirsty, slow, small and not that luxurious.

    • 0 avatar

      Do people still buy 3-series? I thought it was all lease.

      • 0 avatar

        320 sounds like an awfully low number.

        • 0 avatar

          Way faster, more efficient and spacious than the Q3.

          • 0 avatar

            Yes and no.

            Not faster, according to every spec and projection [because nobody’s really driven the new Q3 yet] I can find on the internet, which puts them at a dead heat or the 320i slightly slower to 60.

            Efficient? Definitely the 320i’s lead.

            Spacious? Depends.

            Twice the trunk space (30 vs 16.7 CF), but the Q3 has 48 CF of space with the rear seats down, and unless you’re transporting flat packs the space is more *useful* than the fold-down space on the 320i.

            So that one depends on the shape of the stuff you’re trying to move; the 320i is probably better for four people and some luggage, but the Q3 for “cargo” in general without four people.

      • 0 avatar

        Somewhere in the fantasy land of automotive website commenters – a land where station wagons rule supreme, small RWD cars sell well and evil manufacturer and government conspiracies make cars worse with each generation – there lives a population of BMW 3 series drivers which are all badge whores, can’t drive, don’t even like cars and all lease their vehicles.

        • 0 avatar

          “BMW 3 series drivers which are all badge whores, can’t drive, don’t even like cars and all lease their vehicles.”

          And somewhere, a Mercedes executive swoons.

        • 0 avatar

          I drive a brown station wagon, that I bought almost-new!

          And I regularly see people in M3s who plainly cannot drive them.

          And I can’t imagine a world in which the lease-special 320i is targeting anyone but the aspirant badge-whore.

          (But that is pointedly not the entire population of 3-series drivers, which is where I differ from the fantasy stereotype.

          Plus “aspirant badge-whore” also describes the CLA/GLA target market, and a lot of A3/A4s, as far as I can tell.

          It’s a big, big market.)

          • 0 avatar

            Well, actually, there’s a lot of engineering that goes into that 320i or base 328i. It’s got an excellent chassis and superb driving dynamics. Ditto for the outgoing X1, although it is based upon the older E9x 3-Series. And even Audi’s (Mk.6) Golf-based Q3 isn’t a bad car. I’m not so sure about the CLA-Class and GLA-Class.

        • 0 avatar

          “Somewhere in the fantasy land of automotive website commenters … there lives a population of BMW 3 series drivers which are all badge whores, can’t drive, don’t even like cars and all lease their vehicles.”

          Come to Los Angeles. Your “mythical” 3-series driver is a dime a dozen here.

          • 0 avatar

            And all that engineering is done because without it no M3s or 335is can be sold. If the 320i were the only 3-series, BMW would base it on a cheaper, easier-to-package FWD platform and be done with it.

  • avatar

    Somewhere in the vast empire that is VW with its 122 factories, some poor schmucks are STILL making the GTI Mark V engine, the original week-kneed, carbon-prone FSI engine that Audi gifted on the world in the mid-oughts.

    Making them still for some reason or other, none of them related to customer satisfaction. They couldn’t be bothered to shove in the 2008 A4 version with 258 lb-ft of torque, because that would mean adding the variable exhaust valve lift system and cost them a hundred bucks.

    The only sane reason I’ve been able to fathom for their continuing manufacture is that they’re cheap to make, and because they’re a 2.0 turbo, VW/Audi can give the (false) impression that it’s the same engine they’re shovelling in the new GTI and A3. Hey, what’s a 2.0t between friends, especially as it’s North America only. It has high friction large diameter crank and rod bearings, plain bearings on the balance shaft and cheap DI injectors – compared to the new EA888 III in 1.8 and 2.0t form. So it gets lousy mileage to boot.

    So for North America, where the average soul is barely automotively awake, these engines can be shoved into Tiguans and now Q3s, where their lousy performance can be hidden behind marketing gloss.

    If there was ever a reason to avoid VW/Audi products, here’s another really good one. They’re a cynical company who don’t give two hoots about customer satisfaction. But hoodwinking them? Game on!

    • 0 avatar

      Is this an EA113 engine or an EA888?

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      It is cynical and cheap to keep the old 2.0 in there when even the A3 gets the new one. To me this is a cynical vehicle segment.

      But the EPA numbers are clearly posted and test drives are freely available to all potential customers. If they can’t notice/don’t care about the difference in power between this and the rivals, and can’t read/don’t care about the fuel economy, they are hardly being hoodwinked.

      No one shopping for a Q3 is going to ask bball’s question.

      • 0 avatar

        This may be the most cynical of all vehicle segments. You must be willing to sacrifice money, performance, capability, fuel economy, and style for a badge in this segment.

  • avatar

    I can vouch for this power train as it is the same as the Tiguan…Our loaded 2011 Tiguan SEL gets the REAL mpg speced – unlike the inflated numbers companies like Ford et al put out…a true 22-23 mpg around town…Considering you get an underrated 200hp with underrated torque numbers, I’d rather get a true 23 mpg in this vs 23 mpg in a weakling Nissan Rogue or similar. This is a proven engine that on most dynos is really more like 215 hp/230 lb-ft…We have over 63k nearly trouble free miles on our Tiguan…The passenger rooms is awesome for the small exterior size (only 172″ long on the Q3), so a great compact CUV for urban areas. Now, all we need is the 2.0 TDI like the everyone outside N America gets…

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: IMO, the new Sequoia wears the corporate face better than the Tundra or Tacoma. Maybe it doesn’t...
  • FreedMike: That too.
  • wolfwagen: Along with those that support and endorse it.
  • gasser: Hideous. Top photo of the white one looks like a 4 Runner. “Macho Styling” has jumped the shark.
  • 28-Cars-Later: That’s real cute isn’t it Lou? What’s brilliant is they gain those rights in...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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