By on August 29, 2017

2018 Mazda CX-3 - Image: MazdaAccompanied by a modest price increase of $150, Mazda’s first-generation CX-3 undergoes numerous under-the-skin updates for the subcompact crossover’s third model year.

Mazda’s Smart City Brake Support is now standard across all 2018 CX-3s. G-Vectoring Control, a nifty piece of software that sharpens steering response while reducing driver effort, is also standard on every 2018 Mazda CX-3. Mid-grade CX-3 Tourings are now equipped with auto headlights, auto climate control, and rain-sensing wipers.

Thicker glass, more sound deadening, and improved door seals bolster every CX-3’s refinement quotient. Mazda has also altered the suspension tuning of all CX-3s for the 2018 model year. Mazda claims revised bushings, new front lower control arms, recalibrated dampers, and new engine mounts will improve the CX-3’s “already class-leading chassis dynamics.”

Mazda’s probably not wrong. The 2016-2017 CX-3 was an exceptionally pleasing subcompact crossover to drive. And on that particular subject — on-road behavior — we’re apt to trust Mazda when the company says the refreshed model will be even better. But this is just a refresh, and an invisible refresh at that. As a result, the Mazda CX-3 has the same limitations for MY2018 that it had before, the kind of limitations that severely cramp demand.

It’s very small.

To be fair, the CX-3 is supposed to be small. Serving as a Mazda’s entry in the subcompact crossover sector led by the Jeep Renegade, GM’s Gamma II twins (Encore and Trax), and Honda’s HR-V, the Mazda CX-3 also effectively replaced the Mazda 2 subcompact, which Mazda discontinued in the U.S. marketplace. (The 2011-2014 2 hatchback’s successor can now be purchased in sedan form as the Toyota Yaris iA.)

Yet while there are clearly some customers who tolerate the CX-3’s tiny dimensions — and I would be one of them if I was a subcompact crossover buyer — the CX-3 is really only supposed to be small on the outside.

Honda offers 24.3 cubic feet of cargo capacity behind the rear seats of its HR-V, for example. The CX-3 offers half that much. Besides the HR-V’s more flexible flipping/folding/standing Magic Seat second row, there’s also 14-percent more total volume for passengers and four inches of extra rear legroom.

Sometimes, official manufacturer measurements don’t tell the whole story. But Mazda’s numbers aren’t kidding around. Despite exterior dimensions that basically mirror competitors, the CX-3 is a decidedly cramped subcompact crossover, and Mazda pays the price for the car’s poor packaging. 2018 Mazda CX-3 interior - Image: MazdaOnly 2.9 percent of the subcompact crossovers sold in America during the first seven months of 2017 were Mazda CX-3s. That’s down from 3.7 percent a year ago, a loss of market share caused by the category’s growth — sales are up 6 percent this year — and the CX-3’s rapid decline. Year-to-date, Mazda CX-3 sales plunged 17 percent, a loss of more than 1,900 sales for a model that already lacked any form of popularity. Year-over-year, CX-3 sales have declined in eight consecutive months. Precisely two years into its tenure, the Mazda CX-3 has never managed to produce 1,800 monthly sales, topping out at 1,748 units in March 2016.

There is good news. Mazda recognized some of the CX-3’s outstanding issues — NVH and ride quality — and worked to remedy them for MY2018. Mazda has also been pleased in the past with the number of high-priced CX-3s the company sells.

But until Mazda can solve the CX-3’s packaging faux pas on a next-gen platform, the CX-3 won’t make any meaningful headway in the U.S. market. Or it’ll be worse than that, and the CX-3 will continue to rapidly lose ground.

The 2018 Mazda CX-3 is priced from $21,050, including destination. All-wheel drive is a $1,250 option. With optional paint, the top-trim 2018 CX-3 Grand Touring AWD with the GT Premium Package costs $29,090.

[Images: Mazda]

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

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

50 Comments on “2018 Mazda CX-3 Is Better, But Until It’s Bigger, Better Probably Isn’t Good Enough...”


  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Does it need more room? Yes. Is it a bit noisy? Perhaps. But I could live with those faults. What REALLY turned me off is that this thing is underpowered. It sells “sport” – and when it comes to vehicle dynamics, it delivers – but it’s slow and buzzy.

    Now, imagine this car with something like the 1.8 TSI in the Golf. It’d be brilliant.

    Said it before and I’ll say it again: Mazda needs to do small displacement turbos.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      This is the thing I don’t get about Mazda.

      I WANT to love Mazda. I think they are some of the best looking cars on the market and they pitch themselves as exactly what I want: zoom zoom in a DD package.

      But in every competitive comparison, they are among the slowest and least powerful.

      I bought a Hyundai Sonata because I wanted a peppy sporty fun to drive car over a Mazda 6. The mazda 6 is supposed to be a peppy sporty fun to drive car. The sonata is supposed to be a bargain snoozfest.

      The Hyundai has 245 HP and 260 ft-lb of torque… available from 1400 RPM!

      The Mazda 6 has 184 HP and 185 ft-lb of torque…

      Let me get this right. the snoozefest car has 33% more Ponies and 41% more torque, all available from a stop?

      I’m not trying to suggest the sonata is a sport competitor, which is actually my point. How do you come to plate against players that clearly are not sporty, claim you are sporty, and be so under powered that comparing them together sounds silly?

      The mazda 6 handled really well, and definitely out handled anything else it competes with. So throw a stupid 2.0t in it like EVERYONE ELSE HAS and it would be a car worth owning.

      Its not just the M6 though, this plagues the whole line.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        “But in every competitive comparison, they are among the slowest and least powerful”

        This needs to be rephrased as “against every competitor with the uplevel optional engine, they are the slowest and least powerful”. Mazda’s base engines are fine, perhaps upper tier. They have nothing to apologize for with the 2.0 and 2.5. The problem only comes when you want a turbo or V6 with ~250hp and a $34K+ MSRP in your mainstream DD. They don’t have anything to offer there, but given the low take rate of this configuration from other manufacturers, Mazda wouldn’t be propelled into best seller category if they did offer it.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Here’s the rub with Mazda’s “lack of performance”: it’s all perception.

          I shopped the 3 (with the 2.0) pretty extensively before I bought my Jetta. If you wind the 3 out, it’ll perform with gusto. But in everyday driving situations, the 3’s engine feels far weaker than the 1.4T in my Jetta.

          Now, when you crunch the actual acceleration numbers, you find the 3 is really no slower than my Jetta. But perception is everything, and Mazda loses this battle.

        • 0 avatar
          arach

          In many ways perception is reality!

          I think frequently cars are positively influenced by upmarket alternatives even if they don’t sell a whole lot of them. For example, I think the CTS is hugely helped by the CTS-V, and the 3 series BMW is hugely helped by the M3.

          People will rationalize a smaller engine at smaller price points, but its hard to have “street cred” that YOU ARE THE NUMBER 1 SPORTY BRAND (which is how I feel mazda perceives itself) when your competition does it better.

          heck, make the Mazda 6 sporty version $46,000 and sell 0 of them… but you’ll at least protect your perception in the performance front (you’ll just hurt it in the “value” front)

          (Many of the turbos MSRP for $27k, and the mazda 6 MSRP is $22… and the turbo elantra is $21k, while the Mazda 3 starts at $18k. $3,000 is a chunk of change, but not hugely so)

          The problem is, if I asked a person off the street what Mazda stands for, they’d say Fun and Sporty. Not Cheap and reliable, not Elegant and luxurious… but fun and sporty.

          If a Mazda is Fun and Sporty, then it needs to be the most fun and sporty of any of the competition. They aren’t.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        As other guys mentioned, apple to apple, against other naturally aspirated engines, Mazda6 is the quickest one (take away 2018 models for which there is no sufficient data). Go to C&D recent Mazda6 detailed review, where they have graph comparison for acceleration, and you will see that Mazda6 is quick for its category. Do you know how many turbo Sonatas and Optimas I blew buy in my Mazda3 2L, on Connecticut curves? Off the line quickness can only do so much

        • 0 avatar
          arach

          Apples to apples?

          “I want a fun and sporty 4 door car- what brand do I buy”

          The answer should be “Mazda”

          But the answer isn’t, unless you qualify it with “And I refuse to drive a turbo” or “My budget maxes out at base model trim”

          Seriously. I would buy a mazda in a heart beat if they sold what they sell.

          I see ads that say, “Driving Matters” and “Zoom Zoom”. The sales person tells me there’s a secret mazda trick and if you push the gas pedal to the floor it clicks and thats “zoom zoom” mode. Their advertisements in the store show hitting the curves and driving sportily.

          OK mazda! you got me! I’m so excited to buy the sportiest cars available!

          “Well only if your budget is precisely between $22k and 24k are we the sportiest- If you can spend any more then we can’t compete”

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “…“I want a fun and sporty 4 door car- what brand do I buy”….
            The answer should be “Mazda”…”

            If someone tells me that they buying a brand, I see no point to take it any further. This is the biggest fallacy in car buying.

            And besides, if you’re OK with your Hyundai straight line performance oriented design, all of us are fine with that. To me, I would rather have no turbo, base model, great in curves, great steering, brakes, clutch and gear shifter. How good clutch and gear shifter in your Hyundai?

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        I gladly gave up a few horsepower and torque in exchange for a sharp chassis and excellent steering. My 6 is plenty fast enough for all kinds of daily driving. I don’t think an extra torque boost via turbocharging would be any more practical, although it would probably be more fun.

        I understand why most people like turbos – “it has good pickup”. Stoplight performance is just one piece of the pie.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Agreed, but “stoplight performance” – i.e., the power you use everyday, in traffic, versus when you open it up and scream down a back road – is the kind most buyers use most often. It’s certainly the kind they feel when they’re test driving a new car.

          And this is where turbos have a huge advantage, if they’re set up correctly. Contemporary Mazdas offer plenty of performance – if you push them. That leads to the NVH issue that so many people have identified. But with turbos, the “everyday performance” becomes effortless.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      They can get the 2.5 into the engine bay of the Mazda3, I wonder if it would fit here.

  • avatar
    ash78

    I didn’t even know this existed until just now. I’m not an Urban Millenial (or Florida Retiree, depending on who this is marketed towards) so that might have something to do with it, but I still have a hard time understanding why all these companies feel the need to create something even smaller than their smallest offerings, at least for the US.

    At some point, you’re pushing into the SMART conundrum: Why not spend a couple grand more and get twice the useful interior — unless, of course, you absolutely need the smaller size. It’s the same problem that affects compact pickups, as well.

    • 0 avatar
      VW4motion

      This things is way over priced for what it is. Poor Mazda resale value doesn’t help. Buy one two – three years old for 40% of original price or just get the new Crosstrek, better awd and resale value.

  • avatar
    BunkerMan

    I just can’t get past the styling. I don’t mind the Mazda3, or even the CX-5. They just wear the design language better in my opinion.

    The CX-3 looks like a high-top sneaker to me, especially in white.

    • 0 avatar
      TonyJZX

      Yes I think Kodo doesn’t translate well from SUV to sedan from big to large.

      IMO the Mazda 2 looks ok for what it is, you know its a subcompact.

      The Mazda 3 sedan looks amazing, I think best ever, the hatch is ok.

      The Mazda 6 looks great too, the wagon is fantastic.

      The CX3 is a pass, its just odd. The CX5 is also ok but its compromised. The CX7/9 looks ok but overdesigned once its gets that big.

      Back to the CX3… this whole segment again makes no sense outside of the BRICs.

      You are effectively paying $25k for a very very compromised vehicle. The CUV size up is superior in every way for not much more.

      In Nissan’s camp, why would you buy a Quaskhai Dualis Rogue Sport whatever? They discontent it so once you get the stuff you want, its standard on the Rogue X-Trail.

      It would be a very different story if we got the $15k things like the Nissan Renault Dacia Duster.

  • avatar
    jh26036

    A really nice driving crossover but with none of the benefit of being a crossover. The power doesn’t bother me because it’s suppose to be fuel efficient and inexpensive to buy.

    I hate to say it, the HR-V, while also a very slow, awkward looking, and uninspired driving experience, is a much better vehicle for what it is suppose to do. The HR-V to me defies physics, something that small is actually pretty darn roomy.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    The problem is not so much that it is small, it is unusable behind first row. The rear seat is so uncomfortable, I wouldn’t tolerate 15 minute drive on it

  • avatar
    notapreppie

    I own a 2016 CX-3 GT.

    I don’t disagree with most of what was said. The HR-V is more useful. The Juke is more powerful. The NVH and ride quality could be better.

    But, it’s more interesting to drive than the HR-V, feels nicer than the Juke and feels far more solid than the Trax/Encore.

    I wish it had more power because, well, I always wish that. But, it has enough to get me around Chicago traffic so I can’t really complain.

    It fits my life pretty well. Easy to slot in tiny parking spaces and has enough room to pack up my wife and our 50lb shepherd mix for a week trip down to the Ozarks to observe the eclipse.

    We talk about something not having as much of some aspect as another thing but we rarely talk about how well it fits in people’s lives (probably because that’s so very individualized).

    Would it be nice to have more space, power, comfort? Hell, if the HR-V received Honda’s 1.5T motor, that might have tipped me over into getting that instead. But, we don’t live in a perfect world of perfect cars so you pick the one that fits well enough.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Here is my problem with it – I suspect that for the same money one can buy Mazda3 hatch. Bigger, safer car with great dynamics

      • 0 avatar
        notapreppie

        IIRC, optioned equally, the Mazda 3 hatch is a little bit more but I get your point; you get more car for your money. In my case, the smaller size is something of a feature because it’s more convenient living in a densely populated city. If I were out in the ‘burbs or a more rural location, it would have been 3 hatch all the way.

        I don’t necessarily agree with the safer part of the argument because there are too many variables. With modern crumple zones and passenger cells and such, bigger isn’t always safer.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          I believe, when everything else is equal, like metal grade and thickness, number of airbags, etc., bigger is always better when safety is concern. When you have 8 inches of space between door and your hip in Mazda3 vs 5 inches in CX3, I think, in the side collision it does matter. In fact, early Mazda3 models had issue with hip damage during side collision.

        • 0 avatar
          scott25

          Any CX-3 was significantly more expensive than a 3 when I bought my 3. I’m glad about that because I would’ve become ashamed about owning a crossover soon after despite AWD making winter more fun. Am I the only one on here who wants AWD solely so I can go out on empty backroads after fresh snowfall and slide around? It’s not much fun with FWD.

          Also I’ve never hit the front end of my 3 on anything ever despite often encountering approach and departure angles far beyond manufacturer recommendations in it. . A Cruze, now that’s something with a ridiculously low plastic valance.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            scott,

            tell me, what makes automatic AWD better than FWD with hand brake? If you would tell me that you taking your 4Runner into 3-foot snow, it is one thing. If you tell me that you having fun on snow with your RWD it is also something (remembering my days with 240SX because driving that thing in slick conditions required master skill). These days I take my FWD and I like to complete turns using hand brake. Ever see parallel park competition? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNR4MqG45pk
            If you had 4Runner, you could try tacking some grassy hills covered in snow. watch youtube videos on how people having fun on the snow. You probably wouldn’t take risk doing it with your car

      • 0 avatar
        VW4motion

        Mazda 3 feels even more closed in. No awd and scraping the front of the car every time you go into or out of a driveway is a no sale . My neighbor has one and repeatedly tells me how bad it is driving here in Utah due to the low overhanging front end.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          VW4motion,

          ok dude. Tell me more how bad Mazda3 is. Because I have no idea (after owning 3 of them). Especially this one: “Mazda 3 feels even more closed in” – ridiculous. ‘3 has 9 ft3 more volume and all other dimensions. It just damn seriously bigger. No AWD? wow! I never had a car with AWD. In fact, driving 240SX on snow always was fun. See? I am OK. If you live in the woods, CX3 will not help you anyways, get 4runner or something. Soon I will be getting another car and after testing all “else”, I just think, my driveway will brace one more Mazda3, only this time – 2.5 hatch.

          • 0 avatar
            VW4motion

            I had 2012 Mazda 3 and returned it after 3 days due to poorly engineered ergonomics. Thanks god that dealer has a 5 day 300 mile return policy. My chiropractor did get some extra appointments, there is that.
            If you are taking weekly trips up he Canyon in the winter, awd is nice. Not all parking lots are flat and after 12 inches of snow is dumped while skiing. Fwd and rwd autos just suck. Let’s just say every time it snows at these places some douche thinks he doesn’t need chains or awd and gets stuck or slides out hitting other vehicles while trying to get out a parking space. There is also the poor sound insulation and obnoxious low overhanging front end of almost all Mazda cars.
            Glad to see someone enjoys the 3, just not me. I will give you the outside of the cars look good. Just not a Mazda fan boy after selling them in the 90’s.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          So, you are driving to places where you need a Jeep. Fine. I make 6-hour trips regularly in my ‘3. My model is iTouring, pretty basic. It misses lumbar support badly, at least for my figure. But I can go for 4 hours as is. Then I just place McKenzie roll and that fixes the lumbar support issue. But no matter what I drive, these other cars just don’t have the feel of control Mazda has. I want to buy something else (only nothing German) but I can’t find worthy alternative. I drove Clubman. Every review is raving about its handling and lots of space. But dude, it has harsh ride, steering too light and disconnected, engine sounds like its gargling, rear seat backs are too vertically positioned and make for uncomfortable seating, the front seat is also so narrow – it is made for little girls. I wanted to like it but after the test drive I got into my ‘3 and started to drive home. then a thought hit me – I like ride in my 7yo ‘3 much better than in that Mini Clubman.

          • 0 avatar
            VW4motion

            Great that you have had a positive experience with the 3. But I wouldn’t be saying a clubman is “made for little girls” in the same paragraph when your boasting about driving a Mazda 3.

            On driving a Jeep. We had a Jeep for about 18 months. Two of those months it spent back at the Jeep dealer getting fixed. Total pos.
            I also witnessed a Wrangler trying to pull out of a iced slanted parking space. It slid sideways and got wedged up against an Audi. Meanwhile I was in a similar situation in my Forester and it had very little wheel spin but no sliding and pulled right out with ease. Granted the Wrangler was a manual and the person driving probably didn’t know what the hell was going on.

            On the cx-3 vs, the 3. Wonder which model has a bigger rebates to get them off the lots. I think the cx-3 had close to $3000 off last fall.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Dude, I said Clubman’s front seat is made for little girls. I am on slender side and yet, my tights felt lots of pressure from the seat in Clubman. ‘3 seat is also bolstered but bolsters are soft. Mini has hard seats, hard suspension and hard run flat tires. Together it feels too hard of a ride, I don’t see how I am going to sustain my 6 hour drives.

    • 0 avatar
      Der_Kommissar

      I walked into a Mazda dealer a few years ago to look at a CX-5 and was a bit underwhelmed. Not as dynamic as I had hoped, and too expensive in top trim compared to VW. But then I drove a CX-3, and I spent a good long time trying to figure out if I could cram my wife, two kids, and golf clubs into it. I could not. I’m sure the lack of power would be felt over a longer ownership period, but around town, the CX-3 is just simply fantastic. It was just too small, but it did convince me that the Mazda 3, which I had thought of as too small, may be just right. I suspect that the CX-3 serves more as a decoy in the Mazda line, making the Mazda 3 hatch and sedan look larger. Some people buy the CX-3, like notapreppy, because it really does fit their life, but it really serves as a contrast to other cars.

  • avatar
    npaladin2000

    It’s not just space, though that doesn’t help. Contemplate for a moment how much of the competition has an engine upgrade:

    Kia Soul: 1.6T, ~175 HP
    Jeep Renegade: 2.4L, ~180 HP
    Upcoming Hyundai Kona: 1.6T, ~175 HP

    Mazda needs to put the 2.5L SkyActiv in there. Even if they have to drop the fancy exhaust and lose a few HP in the process, it still needs the HP bump.

    • 0 avatar
      jh26036

      Additional horsepower won’t sell the CX-3. It needs to be re-designed with smarter packaging. The HR-V also lacks any type of urgency under the go pedal, but they have no problem pushing those off the lot.

      The best part about the CX-3 is that it’s made in Japan. :-)

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “Thicker glass, more sound deadening, and improved door seals bolster every CX-3’s refinement quotient.”

    “Mazda recognized some of the CX-3’s outstanding issues — NVH and ride quality”

    Here’s the thing, all of these improvements are very cheap and easy to do and they should have been done to start with simply because they are cheap and easy to do. So they were basically shamed into doing it by customers or the industry, because NVH and ride quality have been owner complaints for decades. This is what Mazda thinks of you, and in the oh so uber important subcompact car segment no less (and no, I did not misspeak).

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Recently we had a minor fender bender repaired on my wife’s Terrain (totally her fault) and I had noticed that although the DI engine diesel like ticking was very annoying at idle outside the vehicle it was nearly undetectable inside.

      When taking it in for repair (the right front fender had been crunched) I noticed the fenders were lined with sound deadening material.

      FWIW Mazda – that’s one way to address NVH.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      The thicker glass and sound deadening makes a HUGE difference. Sounds silly, but my goodness drive 2 years back to back and hear the difference.

  • avatar
    Prove Your Humanity 2+9=?

    How about Madza including the grille openings in the refresh?
    The CX-3 looks like it was just fed an earwax sandwich.

  • avatar
    VW4motion

    Cx-3 is way over priced and poorly designed. It makes the Subaru Crosstrek feel big inside. Just buy one of these used in two years for $12-14,000.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      I agree on this one with one correction – it has poorly design interior space. Crosstrek is just brilliant if you OK with its leaning in corners for which it wasn’t designed anyway. But then, again, why are you comparing apples to plums? Crosstrek is Impreza. In fact, interior dimensions, for ’18 at least, identical for them in Subaru specs. Impreza is compact, CX3 is subcompact. When you want to compare CX3, do so against HRV and CHR.

      • 0 avatar
        Timothy Cain

        It’s not Subaru’s fault – indeed, it’s to Subaru’s credit – that it uses the compact Impreza platform and competes at HR-V/CX-3/Renegade/C-HR-like prices.

        • 0 avatar
          scott25

          Plus the Crosstrek looks 1000x better than anything else in its class (since it’s a jacked up hatch, not a specially designed crossover) and has useful ground clearance, so other than the fact it’s even more underpowered than the CX3, and the CVT, I don’t know why anyone would consider the competition.

          • 0 avatar
            VW4motion

            I drove a new Crosstrek with the 6spd manual. Fantastic. I don’t feel the CVT is awful, but the 6spd manual is very good in the car. Great clutch feel and transmission. Fits the vehicle well. Simply destroys the cx-3 in almost every category.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            I will be driving new Crosstrek MT this weekend. I must try it or I will buy another Mazda3 without even trying

  • avatar
    hirostates12

    Mazda’s real weakness is their terrible dealer network when compared to the true volume drivers. There are lots of lousy cars that outsell Mazda’s because they are fronted by bigger, better sales organizations.

    This car is too small to be a class leader, but it would sell much better to a very realy niche if it had better support.

  • avatar
    saturnotaku

    I looked at a CX-3 last year, but once you factored in incentives, a comparable CX-5 was less than $2,000 more.

  • avatar
    SuperCarEnthusiast

    CX-3 is poor man’s Mini Cooper to me! CX-3 does not have the performance however! Mazda needs to put in the 2.5 Turbo engine for it to be competitive with the Mini!

  • avatar

    Don’t be daft. There’s a CX-5 for the fysically challenged.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • kcflyer: Redapple, I’ll C your 96 and raise you the car my wife had when we met. I think an 89 or 90 exploder....
  • LeMansteve: We test drove a new Venza and new CR-V Hybrid this week. Both were nice and by comparison, the CR-V is a...
  • kcflyer: Thanks redapple and others for the replies. Sounds like the fluid change was at least a manufacturer...
  • wolfwagen: What. The. F**k. is. This?
  • wolfwagen: MEH!

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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