By on April 8, 2016

tesla-model-s-

Suffice it to say the Model 3 has consumed all of the Tesla oxygen in the past few weeks, but that doesn’t mean the Model S is just going to roll over and play dead.

Sources inside the company told CNET that a changes are coming for the ground-breaking electric sedan, possible as early as next week. If true, Tesla founder Elon Musk clearly knows a thing or two about sustaining buzz.

The shadowy source claims the Model S will receive an exterior facelift and a slight move upmarket thanks to more luxurious interior trappings.

The exterior changes will be relegated to a new front end that will more closely resemble the Model X and Model 3, but not specifically one or the other. Revamped headlights round out the nip and tuck.

An undisclosed price bump will accompany the changes.

There’s also a move afoot to make the Model S easier to manufacture — for example, the source claims the updated Model S will borrow its front seats from the Model X to simplify things on the assembly line.

Musk will need to find as many production efficiencies as possible with his existing models, because an awful lot of capacity is going to be taken up by the Model 3, which passed 325,000 reservations in its first week of orders.

That model tentatively heads into production in late 2017.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

59 Comments on “Forget the Model 3, the Tesla Model S Could Look Different Soon!...”


  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    “An undisclosed price bump will accompany the changes.”

    Just what the Model S needed. /s
    .
    .

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Please explain this comment, since the Model S is the runaway best seller in both the EV and performance luxury markets.

      • 0 avatar
        porschespeed

        And yet, fails to make money. So, the pricepoint isn’t, you know, viable.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          because they are investing huge amounts of money in expanding their product line. That means building production lines, expanding charging infrastructure, expanding model lineup, and redesigning existing models. They’re growing a company from scratch and won’t have the same burn forever. Once the infrastructure is built and once new models become iterations of the old models, they’ll start making money.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            mcs, sarc right? Yes, yes they will have the same burn. In fact, it will get worse. That’s the misdirection of Musk, and how people keep falling for it is beyond me.

            The infrastructure will need to continue to be built out at the same rate in order to sell the cars. In fact, let’s pretend they do crank out 100K Model 3s, the demand for more infrastructure will only intensify. With an even lower priced car as the volume leader.

            Charging stations are *not* gas stations – there will need to be a lot more when a “fillup” is a minimum of 20 minutes. Not to mention some inherent means of entertaining people (and lightening their wallet further) while this time-wasting takes place.

            The low-hanging fruit of amortized costs has already been picked at Tesla. The motors always need to be more powerful, lighter, use less juice. Crash standards are always improving, there’s a ton of stuff about a car that needs to be constantly redone. Not to mention the “S” is getting long in the tooth, and it’s boring as hell to look at anyway. It’s in desperate need of a refresh.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “mcs, sarc right? Yes, yes they will have the same burn. In fact, it will get worse.”

            While you offer a seemingly reasonable argument, it simply isn’t logical. Starting with your statement about infrastructure you say, “The infrastructure will need to continue to be built out at the same rate in order to sell the cars.” Why? What’s the logic behind that statement? With each owner capable of charging their BEV at home (with the possible exception of some densly-urban circumstances) the need for Tesla’s Superchargers only exists for those driving between cities 100 miles apart or more. Home charging stations don’t need to be as powerful as those Supercharger stations and the owner has their own private recharging point that would let them start every day with the equivalent of a full tank of gas with almost no need to recharge at a public location. Even if there is a need, many parking garages already accommodate BEVs and PHEVs with slower-rate chargers in spots reserved for EVs exclusively As such, the infrastructure is already good enough for existing Model S Teslas and is still improving. Such build out will not need to continue at the current rate after 2020 even with 3x to 4x as many cars on the road.

            And you’re right, “Charging stations are not gas stations.” But that’s as far as it goes. The simple need for those charging stations is far, far lower per number of vehicles simply because 95% or more of them will be charged at home. As far as the charging time is concerned; there’s a reason truck stops exist and they could easily accommodate installing a bank of high-speed rechargers. The time isn’t wasted either, as Federal regulations limit the time a commercial driver can sit behind the wheel without rest and recommends much shorter periods for non-professional drivers. A pause to recharge a car every 4 hours or so is both healthier and safer for the driver.

            So to be quite blunt, your arguments are meaningless. As Tesla reaches its goals for productivity, costs WILL go down and the net profits of each vehicle will go up. But first Tesla has to be able to compete on a level playing field and right now that is an uphill battle for them.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            Vupine, Yes, they will have to continue to build infrastructure. Though perhaps not applicable to you, there is an entire world full of people who cannot charge a vehicle at their house. Likely as they don’t have a house. Or maybe even a garage. Maybe they have 5 token chargers at your office now, what happens when you need 100? Extension cords and splitters?

            In tiny little islands of new urban construction in modern cities, then you have garages and such with EV charging. The rest of the world is very, very different.

            Apparently you have never road-tripped, or commuted a long distance. Stopping every 200 miles for 20+ minutes? That’s would add at least 4 hours to a simple 2000 mile trip (assuming chargers optimally spaced.) A one day trip with a brief nap at a rest stop, becomes an overnight in a hotel.

            Your equating upper-middle early-adopters of a (relative)few $90K cars with run-of-the-mill folks, who spent $40K-ish. They are very different animals.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “As Tesla reaches its goals for productivity, costs WILL go down and the net profits of each vehicle will go up.”

            Perhaps so, if you assume no external limits to growth stemming from battery chemistry. But that assumption, is still a bit risky. If Tesla proves EVs can be built profitably in quantity, they will have lots and lots of competition from other makes very quickly. All competing for the same battery ingredients, whatever those may be at that point.

            The whole Hydrogen play, is at least partly an attempt to minimize the need to scale exotic chemistry by putting it in every single unit, in favor of concentrating the need for them to a few centralized “refineries.” While Yellen can do a bang up job printing money to pop up Tesla’s stock price and Tesla intenders’ year end bonuses; rare earths and the like aren’t quite so amendable to simple hand waving.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @porschespeed: “Vupine, Yes, they will have to continue to build infrastructure. Though perhaps not applicable to you, there is an entire world full of people who cannot charge a vehicle at their house. Likely as they don’t have a house. Or maybe even a garage. Maybe they have 5 token chargers at your office now, what happens when you need 100? Extension cords and splitters?”

            Really? Someone who doesn’t have a house will have a car? That’s reaching, my friend. As for your “five token chargers at your office…”, they’re simply not needed with a Tesla, which can handle even a 150-mile commute (round trip) without needing a recharge. Those ‘token chargers’ are for the “compliance cars” that are lucky to offer 60-75miles total range.

            You’re ignoring the simple fact that such extensive recharging infrastructure as you propose is simply unnecessary. I myself do not have a garage, but I do have a 220volt outlet to which a Tesla EV can be plugged and recharged within roughly 4 hours. Even if I were renting my home, I would still have access to that plug and thus the ability to charge my car (if and when I own one.) That alone means no need for weekly visits to a gas station. The only time I would need one is if I traveled more than 100 miles away from home, using the base Model S or Model 3 as the example. Add 100 miles to the overall range and you add 50 miles to the unrecharged round trip. Specific to my own locale, there are five separate Supercharger stations within 100 miles of me and by the end of this year more than a dozen. That’s just Tesla Superchargers, not even considering Tesla’s “destination” stations and CHAdeMO/CCS stations within that radius.

            And that is the point. By 2020 there simply won’t be the need for continued rapid expansion of public charging because the cars themselves will be capable of daily round-trip runs longer than today’s compliance cars’ one-way runs. Nobody’s going to want a car with less than 200 miles range unless they literally never travel outside of that range.

          • 0 avatar
            la834

            I think Tesla (and everyone else) is underestimating the demand Superchargers are going to need for the Model 3. Model S and X owners use them primarily for venturing far from home, other times they rely on home charging. But these are well-heeled customers for who time is more scarce than money. For the less-affulent Model 3 set, the pull of free refueling may be irresitable, and they might prefer the half-hour waits at superchargers to paying for electricity at home. I envision long lines at supercharger stations once Model 3 production ramps up.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “I think Tesla (and everyone else) is underestimating the demand Superchargers are going to need for the Model 3. Model S and X owners use them primarily for venturing far from home, other times they rely on home charging. But these are well-heeled customers for who time is more scarce than money. For the less-affulent Model 3 set, the pull of free refueling may be irresitable, and they might prefer the half-hour waits at superchargers to paying for electricity at home. I envision long lines at supercharger stations once Model 3 production ramps up.”

            The simple fix for that is that the supercharger simply will not charge the car if it is within easy range of the car’s home base and the car has sufficient charge to reach that home base. That has already been threatened, if not implemented, in one individual’s case where an owner was in a pissing match with his local power distributer.

        • 0 avatar
          shaker

          h8ers gonna h8

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            Yeah, I remember hearing that for years prior to GM’s inevitable BK, let alone Better Place…

            Analysts gonna analyze. People who don’t understand, still don’t understand.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            How often does porschespeed’s hypothetical regular Joe take 2000 mile road trips? How often does anyone? What stops them from renting a more suitable rig for that extremely rare purpose? He doesn’t use his Porsche when it’s time to transport furniture, does he? Of all the goofy arguments against Tesla, this is surely the goofiest.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            I dunno about the ‘average joe’ I just know about me and those I know.

            Several times a year we crank out 2K (each way) road trips. Pretty standard for those who travel.

            I never said those who don’t have a house shouldn’t have a car. But I did illuminate that tens of millions of apt dwellers won’t have a plug in. They have no “spare 220/240 outlet” just lying around for them to tap and charge their magical car.

            Especially without their landlord’s permission. And without paying…

            I like your fantasy world. How much LSD does it take to live there?

  • avatar
    nickoo

    Ridiculous. The cost of batteries has only gone down. This is a huge mistake. They need to cut the price if they hope to make it far enough to sell a single model 3. Early model 3 reveal probably cost them 50,000+ model S and model X sales.

    • 0 avatar
      Counterpoint

      The Model S is a luxury vehicle, positioned somewhere higher than a BMW 5 series or Mercedes-Benz E class. In the luxury market the price charged to consumers has only a vague relationship to the cost manufacturers pay for parts. Affluent consumers will happily pay more to get more. One of the biggest criticisms of the Model S has been that the interior looks cheap and isn’t as luxurious as the competition, so Tesla is trying to fix that. With the Model 3 coming it makes sense to move the Model S further up market for differentiation and segmentation.
      Tesla still has plenty of cash to survive for a while at their current burn rate, and when they need more they’ll be able to sell bonds at very favorable interest rates on the strength of their order backlog.

  • avatar
    BoogerROTN

    This “article” reads like the typical “Mad Libs” template that CNET uses for Apple product launches…

  • avatar

    TESLA’s model S is too ubiquitous. They need another model – preferably with a longer wheelbase for a larger backseat. A full size, a mid size (Model S) and a small car (Model 3).

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      You mean like the Model X?

      • 0 avatar
        la834

        No, they really will need something to fill the huge price gap between the 3 and S. And probably a CUV priced around $60K typically equipped, one with normal doors to keep the price down and production up.

    • 0 avatar

      I guess with V8?

      In other news: Cadillac is planning to compete with Bentley and RR with news super luxury sedan and SUV.

    • 0 avatar
      Counterpoint

      You could just as well say that Tesla “needs” a full size SUV, a compact CUV, a pickup truck, a sports car, etc etc. In the real world new manufacturers can’t start with a full product line so they have to target a small number of segments where they can have the greatest odds of success.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Tesla IS building into those other segments as it grows. Musk has previously stated there will be more than one version of the Model 3 and has previously hinted at a pickup truck (sometime after 2020.)

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    When stock price goes down, start welding and cutting on your fascia mold.

    Christ, all OEM’s need is Apple-like product launches and a bunch of salty tool and die skilled trades.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    “The shadowy source claims the Model S will receive an exterior facelift and a slight move upmarket thanks to more luxurious interior trappings.”

    And a resultant price hike, I am sure. I’ve seen this movie before.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Looking forward to it.

  • avatar
    phxmotor

    When is the obvious going to get some attention from Tesla?
    In the 1990’s the BEV effort was being pushed by CARB. Mandating production goals from the main industry players.
    Ford (and others) came out with Ranger Size pickups with battery only power. When time came for “owners” to return their leased pickups the independent minded owners began to hide them and otherwise come up with strategies to deny Ford recovering the much loved vehicles. Owners couldn’t believe their useful and economic trucks were to be crushed. It evoked rage and equally strong emotions.
    Why does Tesla ignore the biggest market in the automotive world?
    Pickups(!). By far the single biggest selling vehicles in North America are pickups. Midsized “club cabs” fill the nich of both a functional family vehicle and a trades vehicle combined. Most in this nich are not used for long distance drives. By far…most are used for in town deliveries as was found by the original owners of the 1990’s BEV pickupd. A perfect fit for the Tesla drivetrains. And a perfect application and followup of Edison’s work of 110 years ago on electric delivery type vehicles.
    Coda could have carved a nice nich for themselves had not their decision makers been so miopic in their thinking.
    Once Tesla sees the light…they will soon completely dominate this obvious market nich. If.. Tesla sees the light.
    But like most decision making teams in budding new companies in this business…the Tesla team seems oblivious to this. Why? How can this be so ignored? While a slick sportish car captures their imagination… it’s not the same vehicle thats imagined or needed by buyers in the biggest nich in the industry.
    Coda missed their chance. Will Tesla?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Trucks are money-printing machines, that’s why.

      The Model X EV range is 150 miles while towing only a 5000-lb load. This is just physics.

      There is no way Ford is going to build an F-150 EV that costs $140k, to have it only be able to tow 5000 lbs over a short distance, and with no ability to recharge it at its destination. What a joke that would be. A usable EV truck would itself weigh 8000 lbs and cost $200k. Sure, it could be done, but there is no business case for it.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        Trucks are lifestyle products, so performance is irrelevant. The real problem is that insecure truck buyers don’t want to buy a ‘lectric truck.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          There’s a difference between a “lifestyle” truck and a “working” truck. The vast majority of consumer-owned pickup trucks are ‘lifestyle’ trucks that rarely do any “real work” while the working trucks are almost always base or very low-trim models.

          As for whether or not anyone would buy an electric version of a truck, I can guarantee you they would, at least in the working world. Having a vehicle whose operating costs could drop by 80% or more even if its up-front cost is 200% more could mean the difference between profit and loss for those owners. One Tesla Model S is being used for delivery services in a major US city (I think New York) and has over 150,000 miles on it in just over a year. Imagine the cost of 150,000 miles worth of gasoline in a pickup truck in that environment. The Tesla would use less than $6000 in electricity (estimated at $7 per 200-mile charge) vs $25000 in gasoline (estimated at 15mpg at $2.50/gal.) Four years and the battery-electric truck has paid for itself and shortly after that is almost pure profit.

          • 0 avatar
            NeilM

            Vulpine writes: “As for whether or not anyone would buy an electric version of a truck, I can guarantee you they would, at least in the working world. Having a vehicle whose operating costs could drop by 80% or more even if its up-front cost is 200% more could mean the difference between profit and loss for those owners.”

            I continue to be surprised that nobody is addressing the commercial electric vehicle market. Urban/suburban FedEx and UPS delivery trucks ply routes of known distance, eliminating the range anxiety issue. The benefits from regenerative braking are maximized in an urban driving cycle. And lastly, these trucks return to a central depot overnight, which easily takes care of recharging needs.

            I’d miss the characteristic sound of a UPS diesel panel van being driven as if it’s trying to qualify at Lemans, but surely EV’s make sense for this kind of duty?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Agreed, NeilM. And you’re exactly right, as demonstrated by a Tesla Model S currently being used for very similar purposes. The cost savings on fuel would quickly develop into increased profits for the company despite the higher up-front cost of the vehicle.

          • 0 avatar
            Counterpoint

            NeilM, you haven’t been paying attention. FedEx has been using EV delivery trucks in some urban areas since 2010. But this is a specialized commercial market whereas Tesla is focused on the consumer market.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      I doubt Tesla is ignoring that market; they’re just not yet ready to address that market. It’s going to be an all-new platform form them that will require some significant new design work by them.

    • 0 avatar
      01 Deville

      Musk has talked about doing a truck, but as others have pointed out it is just not feasible right now. Hopefully when batteries cost quarter of their current prices, in a decade or so, we might see electric trucks. I can’t wait for 1600lbft truck with 200 HP motor.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        “1600lbft truck”

        Available traction and vehicle weight would determine the upper limit on usable torque.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “Available traction and vehicle weight would determine the upper limit on usable torque.”

          And motor size. Bigger motor would obviously offer more torque than a smaller one. But I’d also expect the motor would offer the equivalent of more than a mere 200hp, too.

  • avatar
    mcs

    >> because an awful lot of capacity is going to be taken up by the Model 3, which passed 325,000 reservations in its first week of orders.

    There were two different lines at Fremont in the past. One was for trucks, one for cars. Not sure what Tesla is going to do, but looking at the Model 3, I think it’s line could be run much faster than the S/X line. Simpler and less parts, so I’d stick it on a faster moving line and not slow it down by mixing in S/X production.

  • avatar
    gasser

    I’m not surprised that they are moving upscale. Others have noted that the model S interior isn’t quite up to luxury car standards. I think that the Tesla competes with the Audi 8, the BMW 7 series, the Jaguar XJ and the MBZ S class. Many think it is far below them (especially below the MBZ), but a redo of the interior will help. Perhaps the Model S is not direct competition for these others, but the $70-$80 large one spends on a Tesla does not end up in the pockets of these other manufacturers. Luxury car sales are growing in all categories (small, large sedans, SUVs)but in the big sedans only the MBZ S class has really skyrocketed.
    I think the Tesla S is the reason the others have done poorly.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      If they’re just using the Model X interior then it’s really not much more luxurious. Certainly it looks updated and won’t seem dated as soon, but it’s still not really going to approach the quality or bling of the interiors from the other cars you list off.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      In February, Tesla Motors Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) revealed that its premium sedan, the Model S, outshone all of the traditional, internal combustion engine (ICE) powered popular vehicles, including Audi A8, BMW 7-Series, Mercedes S-Class, and Porsche Panamera. Now, a British newsletter has confirmed that the electric sedan is indeed the best-selling European luxury vehicle.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      “…Luxury car sales are growing in all categories…”

      Tesla needs to tap into more of that 1% money so we plebes can get the Model 3.

      So, this is the correct move – now that the novelty has worn off, you need to attract the top German brands buyer by primping up the car a bit.

      • 0 avatar
        redmondjp

        1. You are assuming that they are making profit on their existing cars which they can then reinvest in Model 3 development.

        2. Most of their profit comes from selling carbon/emissions credits.

        3. If statement 1 above is true, they still aren’t selling nearly enough of the existing models in order to fund the development of an entirely new car.

        4. Their cash burn rate is troubling. Long-term prognosis is not good, especially with continued low gasoline prices. If the economy tanks again, forget it.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Too many assumptions are made on Tesla’s “cash burn rate” without understanding the reasoning behind that burn. Unlike traditional automakers, Tesla is being forced not only to build vehicles but also to build infrastructure; infrastructure that was built for the ICE by the oil companies and has expanded to ridiculous levels today. Please tell me why I need three gas stations under the same brand in a mere five miles of highway. Worse, that same five miles has something like twelve large gas stations of which ten are large convenience stores under a mere three brands and the other two are independently owned. Does that really make sense?

          My point is that Tesla’s burn is an effort to be a truly competitive brand with the traditional brands before those brands can truly compete with them. With just the Model S, the nearest competition isn’t scheduled to arrive until 2018 at the soonest and more likely 2020 before they can reach full production (Mercedes, Porsche and a couple others.) The Model X is just a crossover version of the Model S with more visual features to make it stand out from other CUVs. The Model 3 on the other hand is expecting vague competition even before it reaches production; mostly because it’s a lot easier to modify an existing platform (looks something like the Opel Astra) than it is to build a platform from scratch.

          Tesla is going to be in debt for a long time but as their production increases their gross profits will increase and begin to balance that burn. Once the Model 3 reaches full production, that burn rate will have turned around and they’ll be able to start really paying back the loans it has taken out to get started. The only issue will be if they can make that burn turnaround soon enough.

        • 0 avatar
          Counterpoint

          They don’t need to fund development of new models from sales of existing models. They can obtain more capital than they need on the bond market at low rates.

  • avatar
    mcs

    I wonder if they’re going to announce the P100?

    http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/04/nvidia-tesla-p100-pascal-details/

    Coincidentally, if you order 8 of these things in an NVidia DGX-1 system, it costs about the same as a Tesla car.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Not much to do with this article.

    I watched Elon Melon’s successful rocket launch to the ISS today.

    I wanted to rent an aluminium vunda truck by Friday, but had to make do with a Hemi Ram.

    Nice truck, better ride than the Ford I was a passenger in.

    Love Miami.

    • 0 avatar
      porschespeed

      “I watched Elon Melon’s successful rocket launch to the ISS today.”

      Despite a half dozen failures, occasionally doing things on the cheap-n-dirty works out.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        Its the Silicon Valley model. Preparw the scene carefully, try it, see what breaks, fix that, repeat.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          That’s science in general, Luke. Science is research; build what you think will work, try it, observe the results, redesign as necessary, rinse, repeat. Very rarely does something work exactly right the first time you try it, though SpaceX has come close to success four times out of the five previous at-sea attempts.

          BTW, the redesign on this attempt was very visible even at launch. It made a notable difference.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Not “cheap-n-dirty”, porsche. I suggest you examine each of the failed Falcon9 boosters closely on the launch pad and see if you can spot the changes. This last one had an extremely visible difference.

        • 0 avatar
          porschespeed

          Yeah, cheap and dirty.

          I examined them back when they happened.

          They’re exactly what happens when you do things cheap and dirty. Which is what every NASA dude sitting in a bar has always proposed for the last 50 years.

          Nothing novel here, merely skipping the pre-launch testing, like the Russkies used to do.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Real car companies refresh their cars every few years. So Tesla deserves some credit for this.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Those who say that an electric car isn’t optimal for long range driving have a point, but that point only goes so far. Tesla owners love their cars. Almost all of them have another car they can use if the Tesla doesn’t fit their needs for the day. Even more of them have a credit card and can rent the car they need. Going forward, I think that it is likely for some time that a range of power options will remain in the market place, but with at least some electric assist on the vast majority of ICE cars. Traditional hybrids are the easiest and cheapest way to reach CAFE goals. Batteries and electric components are coming down in price, reducing the hybrid premium. The RAV4 Hybrid received the spotlight at TTAC yesterday. The hybrid drive adds only $750 to the price and maintains the utility of the vehicle. There’s room for ICE-assist electrics like the Chevrolet Volt that only carry batteries for a typical day’s drive but have gas engines to handle longer drives. If I were Musk, the next thing I would do at Telsa would be to adapt the Model S’s drivetrain to medium trucks. An electric-drive delivery truck with or without a diesel generator should be much more efficient than today’s models.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    Not a minute too soon. Model S are extremely common in Vancouver. It’s hard to claim the luxury of exclusivity when you see one every other block.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    The Tesla S seriously needs an interior upgrade. It does not currently have the look or feel of a six figure automobile.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Kyree S. Williams: Well, I’m sure part of it is the fact that–well before the advent of the...
  • MKizzy: CUV owners were already dismissing 4-door sedans as being too impractical for their needs due to their low...
  • R Henry: Wow….the lease company likely made money on that deal…just avg 6k miles per year!
  • FreedMike: Here’s the thing – you can find a really nice one very lightly used (and I put an example of...
  • FreedMike: Well, here’s how to solve the price problem: https://www.carmax.com/car/191 73460 Drop a couple...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber