By on June 7, 2017

2018 Toyota C-HR profile, Image: © Timothy Cain

2018 Toyota C-HR

2.0-liter inline-four, DOHC (144 horsepower @ 6,100 rpm; 139 lb-ft @ 3,900 rpm)

Continuously variable transmission, front-wheel drive

27 city / 31 highway / 29 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)

8.7 city / 7.5 highway / 8.2 combined (NRCan Rating, L/100km)

29.4 mpg [8.0 L/100 km] (Observed)

Base Price: $23,495 (U.S) / $26,390 (Canada)

As Tested: $25,345 (U.S.) / $27,990 (Canada)

Prices include $995 destination charge in the United States and $1,700 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada and, because of cross-border equipment differences, can’t be directly compared.

Forget, if only for the next few minutes, the way it looks. You may hate it, you may love it. But don’t let your interpretation of the 2018 Toyota C-HR’s exterior angles cloud your judgement.

While you’re at it, set aside class designations, as well. Whether you, like me, consider the 2018 Toyota C-HR to be unqualified for “crossover” status because it’s missing all-wheel-drive availability, the C-HR is still positioned as a rival for front-wheel-drive HR-Vs, Renegades, Encores, and CX-3s, among others.

The Toyota C-HR was initially intended to form part of the Scion lineup in North America, but with that brand’s demise, Toyota wisely moved the C-HR into its own lineup. Slotted below the Toyota RAV4 with dimensions that all but mirror the old Toyota Matrix, the 2018 Toyota C-HR is a $23,495-25,435 hatchback that’s garnered more attention during its stay with me than any vehicle I’ve ever tested.

To my surprise, almost all of that attention was positive. But is the Toyota C-HR worthy of such attention?

2018 Toyota C-HR - Image: © Timothy Cain

Toyota intends to sell 60,000 C-HRs annually in the United States. If the automaker succeeds, it will do so on the basis of the C-HR’s style (including the perceived crossoverishness), traditional Toyota qualities such as dependability, a high level of standard safety equipment, and on-road behavior that shames a number of its competitors.

Combine a 104-inch wheelbase with 18-inch wheels, a marginally elevated ride height, and modern automotive tendencies to stiffen suspensions. The resultant expectation is for kidney-bruising, filling-loosening, passenger-angering ride quality.

Yet the Toyota C-HR leans strongly toward absorption, a welcome achievement for a vehicle in this category. Or in any other category, for that matter.

Now combine that superior ride quality with delightfully light (albeit uncommunicative) steering and level-headed cornering. The C-HR becomes a charming urban partner.

2018 Toyota C-HR - Image: © Timothy Cain

The benefits of Toyota’s New Global Architecture pay off here as they do in the latest Prius. A stiff structure enables Toyota to maximize handling, relatively speaking, without suffering an unwelcome degradation in rough-road isolation.

Unfortunately, the cheerful manner in which the front strut/multilink rear suspension allows the Toyota C-HR to make its way down the road isn’t matched by the way the 144-horsepower, 2.0-liter four-cylinder makes its way up a road, particularly if that road includes a mountain. Or a hill. Or a hillock. Or a slope.

Equipped exclusively with a continuously variable transmission that’s tuned to make the C-HR feel decently jaunty in town, the 3,300-pound C-HR is unhappy when prompted to provide maximum progress. The more demanding you are, the more disappointing the C-HR’s 2.0-liter becomes. The CVT is momentarily AWOL when you suddenly punch the throttle at the base of an incline, leaving you in dire need of either 40 more lb-ft of torque or a manual transmission.

For the most part, prospective C-HR customers who have cross-shopped alternatives from Honda, Chevrolet, Jeep, and Mazda won’t be expecting a powerhouse under the hood. But many of the 2018 C-HR’s potential rivals do offer unique interior benefits: the HR-V’s rear Magic Seats, for instance, or the Mazda’s cut-above materials, or the Jeep’s Uconnect.

2018 Toyota C-HR - Image: © Timothy Cain

From an infotainment perspective, many will be disappointed by the C-HR’s lack of Android Auto/Apple CarPlay connectivity. The backup camera displays its picture in a tiny corner of the rearview mirror. Rear quarters are decidedly more subcompact than compact. Access to the rear seat — via high-mounted door handles that are too lofty for some children to reach and too small for an adult’s meaty hand — is a daily annoyance. Visibility, particularly for shoulder checks on the passenger’s side, is among the worst of any four-door vehicle on sale today. Officially specified to include 19 cubic feet of storage, the cargo area is diminished by the C-HR’s dramatic roofline.

Thankfully, some of these complaints will be forgotten once you spend some time in the driver’s seat. Thick side bolsters and a wide range of adjustment make these front perches among the best sub-$25,000 seats on the market. Manual adjustment is somewhat limiting, but there’s power lumbar support as an added bonus.

2018 Toyota C-HR interior - Image: © Timothy Cain

On the one hand, the 2018 Toyota C-HR offers a winning chassis and comfortable seats in a rather refined setting. On the other hand, the C-HR’s interior lacks the useable space required to compete with conventional compact hatchbacks while the powertrain lacks the verve to keep up with conventional compact hatchbacks.

On one side of the coin, the C-HR is heaped with blind spot monitoring, rear cross traffic alert, auto high beams, radar cruise control, and lane departure warning. On the flip side, there’s no Apple CarPlay, no Android Auto, and no navigation.

In the pro column, the C-HR looks like nothing else on the planet. On the con side of the ledger, the C-HR looks like nothing else on the planet.

Undeniably, the 2018 Toyota C-HR is therefore a divisive car. But can’t the same be said for many of its rivals? From the dying Nissan Juke to the Buick Encore, Honda HR-V, Fiat 500X, and Jeep Renegade, this high-riding category is chock full of vehicles that some of us love to hate and some of us love to buy.

2018 Toyota C-HR - Image: © Timothy Cain

Topping out at $25,345, the 2018 C-HR XLE Premium is competitive with top-spec, front-wheel-drive variants of the Honda HR-V, Mazda CX-3, and Mitsubishi Outlander Sport, among others, though its base price is higher.

The problem arises when the C-HR is compared with the Kia Soul, even the $23,695 turbocharged Kia Soul. That explains why the Soul outsells all of the aforementioned C-HR alternatives, and why the Soul is so recommendable.

But that doesn’t mean the more reasonable Soul will stop Toyota from selling a fair number of C-HRs, just as the HR-V’s flexible rear seats and the CX-3’s lively dynamics and the Encore’s quiet cabin and the Renegade’s off-road cred and the Juke’s DIG 1.6 won’t stop Toyota from succeeding with the C-HR, either.

Which means you can go back to determining whether the 2018 Toyota C-HR is ugly or pretty; a car or a crossover.

Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and and the founder and former editor of Follow on Twitter @timcaincars.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

56 Comments on “2018 Toyota C-HR Review – Dividing Opinion Doesn’t Get Any Easier Than This...”

  • avatar

    Didn’t we just see a C-HR review? The Truth Against Cars is starting to repeat itself.

    • 0 avatar

      That was a preview article to this review, where he mentioned that it got a lot more attention from the public than nearly any other car he has borrowed. It wasn’t actually a review, and wasn’t supposed to be.

  • avatar

    So what does this bring to the table over the Corolla iM?

    It doesn’t have AWD, costs more, is slower despite the extra .2L, gets worse FE, has less cargo and passenger capacity, and has similar styling.

    Is the hip point even that much different between the two?

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      You’re looking at it the wrong way. It has *more* cramped and *more* bad value for the same amount of FWD.

    • 0 avatar
      John R

      Is the Carolla iM a “CUV”? No.

      The AMC Eagle was really ahead of it’s time.

      • 0 avatar

        I find it amusing that in the ’70s AMC spent much of their available funds developing the Pacer, which was intended to be futuristic but wound up just being weird. By 1980 AMC was too broke to gamble on bold futuristic cars anymore, so in a desperate attempt to keep the lights on in Kenosha they decided to explore a potential snow-belt niche market by throwing some Jeep AWD hardware under a decade-old Concord wagon, lifting the body skyward, sticking on some cladding to fill the space, dressing it up with tough looking SUV-ish styling cues, and calling the result an Eagle. Nobody at the time thought it was even remotely futuristic, but the Eagle turned out to portend the future far more accurately than the Pacer did.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree, I would (and very well might) buy the iM over the C-HR. It’s not that the C-HR doesn’t appeal to me in some ways; I don’t need backseat space, I like the looks, and it sounds like it’s fun to drive, CVT notwithstanding. But it’s silly to spend another $5000-$6000 (based on current selling prices) for the C-HR when the iM offers the same functionality with more restrained styling. And you can get it with a manual!

    • 0 avatar

      This is on a more modern platform and has a nicer interior. Not worth the price gap though.

  • avatar

    After the Juke, the C-HR seems far less interesting and adventurous, and rather late to the party, even though it’s a better-looking car.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Not for the first time, one of Toyota’s overtures towards sportiness is imbalanced. Toyota’s conservative take on drivetrain engineering and steering feel seems out of place with the chassis, seats, and sheet metal.

    I’m not involved in marketing research of any kind, so I have a hard time understanding who a vehicle like this appeals to. Someone who wants shouty styling but nonexistent performance, has no need of a real backseat, and can part with the considerable sum of twenty four thousand dollars to do it. Some college kids and millenials have that money. Empty nesters near retirement probably do to.

    • 0 avatar

      This is what used to be called a “secretary’s car.” It’s for the kind of buyer who, 25 years ago, bought Rabbit/Cavalier convertibles or non-V8 pony cars. Those mostly female buyers don’t care about outright performance, and since they’re single they don’t really care much about rear seat or cargo room either. They want a style statement at a reasonable price of entry, period.

      Historically, a carmaker can score a couple years of pretty good sales on a car like this, but only a couple since the fashion statement inevitably goes stale. Which is why the carmaker is smart not to invest too much in bespoke chassis or mechanicals, since there’s not a very long time to amortize their cost before the sales dry up.

    • 0 avatar
      punkybrewstershubby aka Troy D.

      It was kind of like that with my company car, a 2015 Legacy 2.5 with the steering wheel shift paddles. They seemed very out of place but I got used to them after a few thousand miles.

  • avatar

    Another bizarre combination from the company that gave us the 2ZZ-GE powered (~8000 RPM) Matrix XRS.

  • avatar

    It has worse fuel economy than a Corolla, the same utility as a Corolla, but it costs $5,000 – $7,000 more than a Corolla. Is the step-in height really worth that much extra cash?

    Also, why would you ever make a useless utility vehicle, but not make it hybrid to compensate for the poor fuel economy caused by the taller passenger compartment?

    Buyers are paying significantly more money for the car and fuel, yet they are getting considerably less.

    • 0 avatar

      But a Corolla is not a CUV. I get ya but these wont be cross shopped.

      IMO there’s better buying everywhere else BUT Toyota here. I might even say the Rav4 is a better buy.

      Where I am the Mazda 3 SP25 is cheaper. I cant imagine any reason why I’d take this over a 2.5 litre 180hp Mazda 3, granted it doesnt snow where I am.

    • 0 avatar

      “It has worse fuel economy than a Corolla, the same utility as a Corolla, but it costs $5,000 – $7,000 more than a Corolla.”

      There are a lot of cars that cost more than Corolla and have worse fuel economy. Is Corolla your measuring stick. I was sitting in one today. It smells like it was made of bad chemicals. CHR on the other hand has glorious interior, besides second row side windows

  • avatar

    The Nissan Potato, I mean, the Nissan Juke, now has a competitor for Ugliest Car in America.

    Hyundai is trying to out-flame BMW, Honda is trying to out-do Hyundai, Nissan is trying to out-Honda Honda, and Toyota is upping the ante.
    Enough already! Time for a clean sheet of paper, and a new trend for styling. How about starting with a VW, whose only decent trait now is exterior styling, and subtly improving on that?
    Controversial styling like the C-HR will get very old very quickly, the depreciation will be phenomenal, and current sales will be only to the gullible and the blind, and of those, only the ones who don’t know a CVT from a CVS.

  • avatar

    Why? Why? Why Toyota? You beat it with an ugly stick, until the stick broke, and then picked up another stick.

    • 0 avatar
      mister steve

      I suspect that they learned their lesson trying to sell to the yoot maket when most of the practical, boxy Scions were snapped up by boomers. So they figured if they made it butt-ugly with wings, huge blind spots and a castrated drivetrain and infotainment system it get another look by the millenials.

      As a boomer I’d rather have a sharp stick in my eye than this thing, so they might be right.

    • 0 avatar

      I agree. That is one ugly, ugly automobile.

  • avatar

    In 6 years this will look like the 1959 Cadillac looked in 1965 – terribly “what were they thinking” outdated. The only difference is this piece of crap will never be a big bucks collector car in 60 years as the few remaining 59 Caddies are today.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in my eye there is no North American vehicle more beautiful than a 1959 Cadillac. And the prices being asked and paid for them demonstrate that there are great many collectors who agree with me.

      • 0 avatar


        I like the 59s myself, but I remember in the 60s when everyone laughed at them as being so out of style. Today they are collectible because they represent peak tailfin and because of the low survival rate.

  • avatar

    Toyota styling has gone off the deep end. Yet, like lemmings the buyers will shrug and still line up.

  • avatar
    Toy Maker

    Check out one at dealership yesterday, I am positive the floor to roof measurement is less than the iM as well.

    Some people just want a higher-riding Matrix (or a jacked up Scion tC), and this is it.

    Rear seats are surprisingly spacious, if you compare it to a tC.

    So there you go.. if you want a fun car get the Toyota 86. If you want something more butch the C-HR , if you want actual utility get the RAV-4.

  • avatar

    One positive: This thing is quite distinctive and individual–almost no confusing it with another model. Moreover, by carefully blocking out the front wheel and body of the vehicle, I was able to anthropomorphize the nose clip to an angry squirrel/rabbit-like visage. This thing could be a cute toy for someone the way the Juke was for Nissan. The fact that it’s not quite as extreme as the Juke works to its favor.

    However, its body proportions look ALL wrong. The fact that it’s on 18″ wheels instead of 20″ helps a lot because it simply looks too chunky for its size. Had those been 20″, I’d be questioning its stability. Even so, it looks a lot taller than the Matrix, of which I test drove its Pontiac sibling just before I ended up buying a first-year Saturn Vue in ’02. The profile shot above seems to exaggerate its height even more than the ¾ views we saw in the previous article about this thing.

  • avatar


  • avatar
    John R

    I feel as though a childhood spent watching Voltron, Robotech, Dragonball, etc. has prepared me for today’s Japanese Auto aesthetics.

    I don’t mind this. I just wish it had the Lancer Evolution’s powertrain.

  • avatar

    Toyota Matrix with AWD – 2,973 pounds

    Toyota C-HR with FWD only – 3,300 pounds

    Before you wail safety equipment made it fatter, the Matrix was built to 2013. The additions don’t add that much weight.

    Further to the point, other makers have figured out ways to make vehicles larger, safer, with the safety goodies, and shed hundreds of pounds from their predecessors.

    Twenty-years ago, the 300 to 500 pound weight advantage Toyota had on their vehicles over Detroit and Euro competitors gave them a signifcant boost in fuel economy and performance, less mass to drag around.

    No need to look down on the 144 HP in the C-HR, but that weight. A larger, with bigger engine, options like navigation and power seats, with AWD Ford Escape comes in at 3,645.

    A Mazda CX3 is 2,950 pounds and the 2018 Chevrolet Equinox is 3,327 pounds, and a murdered out Kia Soul is 3,250 pounds.

    The very slow decline of Toyota continues.

    Prediction: they will hit their sales targets for the first 18 to 24 months, and then sales will plummet. The design isn’t going to age well. (for the record I like it, but I also like the Juke when it was new, and don’t see the Encore as an ugly wart)

    • 0 avatar

      Check under the seats. May be ISIS placed some explosives or weapons in it. It comes from Turkey, remember?

    • 0 avatar

      It is going to be extremely slow decline it seems since C-HR is going to top 5 best selling Toyota model worldwide… it is outselling Rav4 already in many markets in Europe and Japan where it was #1 believe it or not last month.

      Basically it is shortened new Rav4 with higher quality interior and shorter overhangs. It is based on same platform as new Prius and Camry, with sophisticated rear suspension… it is going to weight more than Yaris based SUV.

      This is kind of vehicle that Toyota needs to produce in the future… sure maybe with new 1.5l Turbo instead of 2.0 AR but still.

  • avatar

    Not going to buy a car I can’t see out of.

  • avatar

    This is not quite as ugly as the 2018 Odyssey. That isn’t as ugly in pictures as it is in person, but in person, the Odyssey is heartbreakingly ugly. Said Odyssey has all of this car’s styling cues, plus some of its own, spread over a larger body, and I saw one on the road the other day and had to pull over and cry.

    I get why this exists I suppose. It’s not as practical as a Corolla but dear God do you want to be seen in the favourite car of Asian grandmothers going 45 in the left lane? I thought not. It allows a young person to make the statement I am YOUNG! for not a lot of money. Someone is buying Buick Encores so I suppose this is for said person who doesn’t either want a Buick or doesn’t want an attractive car.

  • avatar

    I can’t even begin to explain it. But I really like it. Possible replacement for my 2003 Pontiac Vibe that just died with 237,000 miles on it.

    • 0 avatar

      I am not too interested in the car itself, and it sounds like a middling-to-weak value, but the styling is one thing I actually DO LIKE about it. It’s a little crazy, but I think it’s in a good way.

  • avatar

    ” The CVT is momentarily AWOL when you suddenly punch the throttle at the base of an incline, leaving you in dire need of either 40 more lb-ft of torque or a manual transmission.”

    Sounds as of this is crying out for the instant electric motor response of an hybrid drive train.

    This thing looks like the love child of the Nissan Rogue and the current Prius. Japanese cars’ styling is off on a very ugly tangent recently.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    The name C-HR annoys and disappoints me. I am still unsure who makes it when I hear the name. Toyota is clearly trying to ape Honda’s cute ute naming formula. Yes, it was to be a Scion but the only 3 letter Scion was the FRS, which isn’t an FRS now that it’s a Toyota. Naming it the C-HR is a loser move in my eyes, just used to create confusion.

    Also, whenever I see the Cinderella/Rapunzel commercials, when they say “an all new crossover” at the end, every time I hear/read “another new crossover.” You’ll notice they never show anyone getting into the rear seat. I suspect this is because of the contortion needed for a full sized adult.

  • avatar

    I was sitting in line at Costco Gas in Albuquerque yesterday when I noticed a C-HR in the line next to me (the first I’ve seen in the metal). It was a burnt orange sort of color and someone had tinted the front windows to match the rear (possibly the dealer, that’s pretty common here in NM).

    His line was moving faster and he got to the pumps before I did. Who steps out to fill up? A gentleman in a newsboy cap who was pushing 80 years of age. This was more shocking to me than the Altima 3.5 SR model ahead of me that was being driven by a priest who stepped out wearing his his Roman collar.

    Good luck with the “youth” market Toyota.

  • avatar

    Boy, I seem to remember when the comments here on TTAC seemed to be more in touch with reality than those on other car blogs. Now reading through the comments here it’s clear that the folks here have no idea what actual car buyers want at all.

    The reality is very simple: People want higher riding vehicles that isolate feel away from the steering wheels, but still handling somewhat confidently around corner. Why? Because regular folks don’t care to feel what’s going on with the tires with their hands, they just want a relaxing drive on their jammed traffic commute and to occasionally be able to toss the car around a corner. They want to be able to step into their vehicles without falling down into the seats. And something that’s completely ignored here is the fact that crossovers are cheaper to insure than their car counterparts. Just look at the IIHS loss data charts, crossovers cost the insurance companies far less in payouts. Why? When your crossover is tapped by another crossover it’s a cheap and simple bumper patch and respray. When your low to the ground car is tapped by a crossover you’re replacing the trunk, the rear taillights, the bumper, etc. for thousands of dollars. Now that higher riding vehicles don’t instantly tip over thanks to modern electronics, the old safety arguments for staying with midsize sedans just don’t apply to commuter vehicles anymore.

    If you want a sporty vehicle buy a damned sports car. I have nothing against regular commuter cars focusing on what the customers want, and this CHR is delivering exactly what people want.

    • 0 avatar

      These commenters are people too, you know. These are people expressing what they WANT, not what somebody thinks they want. And based on real-world results, Toyota has become notorious for mis-reading their customer base.

  • avatar

    I like that Toyota is finally taking some styling risks.

    That said, this is roughly the same price and weight as a CRV, but with WAY less space and power. It’s down 45 hp right off the bat, and take it up a mountain to go skiing or hiking and now you’re down as much as 75 hp, thanks to the turbo on the CRV. No thanks!

    Like PrincipalDan, I live in Albuquerque. My house is at 6000′, and air pressure, and therefore power, is about 18% lower here, so turbos help a lot.

    • 0 avatar

      Remember, this doesn’t compete with the CRV, that is the job of the RAV-4.

      This is built to compete against the HRV, Trax, Soul, Renedage, and Fiat 500X.

      My issue is that Toyota has built a tweener sub-compact CUV with a compact CUV weight, minus the availability of AWD.

  • avatar

    I’d like to hear Sajeev’s take on this. Does it have two spoilers? Tail lights that look displaced, along with the Mirai/Prius jet nozzles front and back. At least it’s not boring, awkward maybe.
    Edit: it’s not really the tail lights that are wrong, it’s the trapezoidal bulge that’s out of place. That, and the giant wiper blade on horizontal glass. Is that wiper necessary?

  • avatar

    My (60 year old) mom just bought one this week, the top trim with the 18″ rims like this.

    Driving it, I really liked it, and as I’ve said before I like the styling as well other than the front end. The seats were amongst the best I’ve ever sat in in a car, it handled reasonably well and was smooth riding. Lots of useless tech but I agree it’s bizarre that there’s no apple/android auto. My mom wanted nav but couldn’t get it. We also fit 4 adults in it just fine. The back seat is cavernous compared to something like a Focus or Mazda 3.

    Three main things prevent me from being a CHR customer, the powertrain which is every bit as awful and gutless with the CVT and numb steering as Tim describes, the visibility/C pillar which make my xD and Mazda3 hatch feel like a first-gen CRV by comparison, and the price.

    My mom replaced her Corolla with this. I told her to drive the iM but she said it felt cheap and “junky” by comparison. She also has 0 interest or cares about “crossovers” or ride height. She just liked the CHR.

    • 0 avatar

      Front seats are great. Reminded me Civic Si seats I tested last weekend. Rear seat not bad. Good headroom. But you feel like you are in jail, punished, and sent to a single cell with small opening 8 feet above the floor.

      • 0 avatar

        The seats are comfortable. I described the backseat like being in a submarine. It is roomy in the back, even for a large toddler convertible seat.

  • avatar

    This is oddly appealing to me. At first I found the exterior appalling, it’s grown on me (a little) now. But it seems Toyota is getting back on track. The past few years, they’ve all been so junky and cheap feeling. Smoothness and quietness used to be Toyota hallmarks, but what recent models really qualify as either? Smooth ride, comfy seats, and nice-looking/quality interior? Doesn’t sound so bad. Lack of nav/sunroof is really weird and inexplicable though.

  • avatar

    What this vehicle needs is something along the lines of Honda’s 1.5 turbo 4.

    Actually, Honda’s own HR-V needs that engine badly, as well.

    The styling of the Toyota is light years more interesting than the Honda, and Honda has the engine Toyota needs. Maybe Honda and Toyota could collaborate, both could sell a badge engineered version. Like the Subaru / Toyota sporty car thing.

    Yeah, ain’t gonna happen, but one can dream.

  • avatar

    Looking at the photos and it looks similar to the Nissan Juke… terrible vehicle esp. for TALL people.

    The roof line is very low and forget about the rear view.
    WTH designs the Toyota vehicles?! They should just STOP depending on the vehicle designs using the a wind tunnel POV for fuel efficiency. It’s ridiculous!

    Also, that front grille design is now standardized unfortunately across the Toyota vehicle line up and should be changed.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • bullnuke: My neighbor worked for Frigidaire in Moraine. When it shutdown he came home after stopping by the bar up on...
  • FreedMike: Oooooh, stripes! Snark aside, the look is actually pretty cool. Toyota seems to have gotten a good deal on...
  • Jeff S: I meant Moraine OH not Loraine. The Moraine GM plant made Frigidaire appliances, then S-10s and S-15s, and...
  • Jeff S: For me it was most of the 58 GMs that had chrome literally put on with a trowel (exception 58 Chevy and...
  • zerofoo: If “they” (who?) I’ll tell you who “they” are. They are the ones that tell us sea level...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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