By on November 2, 2017


Twenty years and five months ago, I took delivery of my first Land Rover. It was a five-speed ’97 Discovery SD, black with tan interior, leased for $451 per month, driven to the absolute limit of its 15,000-mile-year contract provision as I criss-crossed the Midwest pursuing the bitter end of my ur-career as a professional BMX racer and cycling journalist.

Those early US-market Discos were infamous for giving trouble but mine was almost flawless despite enduring more than its fair share of dirt road and winter-recovery stupidity. My father was so impressed by the truck that he promptly snagged a ’99 Range Rover, which proved to be the nightmare embodiment of British quality stereotypes. His experience did not put me off. I replaced the Discovery with a Freelander then traded it in 18 months later for the ultimate final Disco, a 2003 4.6-liter seven-seater in a fetching shade of green frost.

Where am I going with this, other than into the gauze-covered abyss of nostalgia? Just here: I want you to understand that I have genuine affection for, and not inconsiderable experience with, proper Land Rovers and Range Rovers. I was an unabashed fan of the brand for a very long time. I don’t use Land Rover or its products as the punchline for a cheap auto-journo joke and I don’t mindlessly repeat stereotypes about the quality or performance of products from the formerly British firm. I approach every new product from Land Rover with the same sense of fondness that some people reserve for reunions with distant but dearly missed family.

So when I tell you that the Range Rover Evoque is an exercise in sloppily-executed cynicism that makes the Cadillac Cimarron look like the 1995 Lexus ES300 by comparison, I hope you’ll understand that it hurts me to tell you that. Want to hear why? Click the jump and join me on a less-than-solid Tennessee excursion that ends with me returning a rental car just a few hours after picking it up.


My long-time readers know how much I used to love visiting Nashville, and they know why. Alas, nowadays I’m usually just using the city as a stopover between home and somewhere else. Such was the case when I flew into BNA a while ago. My plan was to pick up a rental car and head up to NCM Motorsports Park to do some track testing of a few different vehicles. I’d reserved a Malibu (or similar!), but when I saw the Evoque sitting there in the upgrade space I thought it might be a good time to give the littlest Rangie a chance.

Start with the good parts: It clearly looks like some sort of Range Rover even if much of the design language originated in Spen King’s “100-inch wagon” has been borrowed or outright stolen in the five decades between the arrival of the Mk I truck and now. When I see it, I’m reminded of the nasty characterization of the first-generation SLK as a “stunted runt.” As the original SLK was to the R129 SL, this Evoque is to a proper full-sized Rover.


The interior riffs on the general theme set in 2003 by the third-generation Rangie, which is to say that you sit a little higher than you need to and look down on a bunch of earth-toned soft-touch plastic. Proper Rovers are known for their airy cabins, which you don’t quite get in this chop-top special. Nor do you receive a top hat’s worth of headroom, which is fine. The important part is that it doesn’t feel like a CR-V or Ford Escape from the driver’s seat. As tested, this is about a $46,000 vehicle, and there’s nothing in the quality of the interior materials to belie that price, for good or ill.


Unless you’re already a Range Rover owner, you’re going to find the infotainment system to be a surprise, and an unpleasant one at that. It is decidedly third-rate. Everything seems to require at least one more step than in, say, a Hyundai Sonata.

Phone integration with my Galaxy S7 was particularly poor, as was the audio quality of any conversation using the hands-free feature. The buttons that call up the various screens often seem to have gone on strike. Perhaps they are just sleepy. Evoque drivers whose Seeking Arrangement “daddies” are willing to spring for the $62,600 Autobiography trim level will get a 17-speaker Meridian sound system that is probably quite nice. The rental versions get no such thing.


They do, however, get the panorama roof, which sets new standards for this sort of thing. Overhead glazing is very much in keeping with Rover brand history. My 4.6 Discovery had four pieces of glass in the roof: first-row moonroof, second-row moonroof, and two “alpine windows” over the rear seats through which our European cousins could keep track of the vehicles above them on, say, the Furkapass.

If you’re accustomed to the Mercedes-Benz implementation of a “Pano roof,” you’ll be flat-out amazed by the uninterrupted sweep of overhead sunlight provided to both rows in the Evoque. It’s very good, although there was a bit of a rattle from the front pane of glass whenever it was fully closed and no amount of pushing or fussing could make it right. If you thought being owned by an Indian conglomerate was going to do what neither BMW nor Ford could manage in regard to initial quality measurements, you were deeply, hilariously wrong.


In addition to an extra portion of sunlight, second-row passengers in an Evoque get more space than they would have gotten in an original Range Rover or a Discovery. It’s pleasant enough and the seats are just as carefully bolstered as their avant-garde counterparts.


Cargo room is more than adequate for this class of vehicle; a CR-V might have a bit more but it doesn’t really matter. At heart, the Evoque is a frivolous vehicle, meant for wives and girlfriends and au pairs to trundle between manor and mall. Land Rover can’t make it too spacious because they don’t want the Evoque to cannibalize the Range Rover Sport, which has to suffer with a much less space-efficient platform. If you’re seriously measuring the available cargo room against what can be had in, say, the Lexus RX350, then perhaps Sir would be best served going with the Japanese offering.


As driveway ornamentation, the Evoque ain’t half bad, really. Once you start to drive it, however, things fall apart faster than you can pronounce “Chinua Achebe.” The 237-horsepower two-liter turbo four-cylinder combines with a ZF nine-speed automatic to offer fairly rapid pace when you absolutely flat-foot demand it, served with just a light dusting of torque steer to remind the driver of the Evoque’s proletarian platform roots.

The rest of the time, however, the transmission seems designed to catch the engine napping. Multiple downshifts are common in normal driving situations and they are not executed with alacrity. Fuel economy is also pretty dismal, but you don’t need me to tell you that. The Evoque is actually pretty light for a luxury CUV at 3,750 pounds, but the equivalent CR-V or RAV4 would still be a few hundred pounds south of it.


Handling is about standard for this type of vehicle, with a bit of added lead-footed feel provided by the massive running gear. If you were to grow up driving something like this, a plain Civic sedan would feel like a Formula One car by contrast. The relatively high chairs don’t help matters. I had more faith in my ’97 Discovery as a fast-road device; it would bob and weave on the long coil springs but it never surprised you with a sudden change in traction. This feels more like a Ford Escape on aftermarket dubs.


Here’s the bottom line: If you liked the Cadillac Cimarron, you’ll like this. Just like the facelifted, V6-powered Cimarrons, this Evoque looks vaguely prestigious and it’s a bit quicker than the store-brand competition. It has none of the virtues commonly associated with old-school Land Rovers, and it makes my old Freelander feel like a Series IIa by comparison in terms of usable ground clearance and maneuverability. I’m not sure why anybody would buy it. Nor do I recommend it in any way, shape, or form.

Not that it matters. As I was preparing to enjoy a solitary lunch at an Outback steakhouse south of Nashville, a woman accosted me: “That’s your Evoque? I LOVE THEM SO MUCH I’M ASKING MY HUSBAND FOR ONE FOR CHRISTMAS!”

“I’m sure you will enjoy it,” was my apathetic reply, but it did not fail to register with me that I’ve never seen anybody that randomly enthusiastic about, say, a Ford Flex. A little bit later in the day, I walked out of a music store only to find that there were three black Evoques in the line of parked cars facing me. There’s clearly a market for the vehicle.

In the end, however, I decided to return the Evoque to the rental agency and take a Malibu for the rest of my trip. The $23/day upcharge to drive a “Range Rover” felt like too much money. There’s something sad about that. I spent a lot of my life deeply involved with the Land Rover brand. It’s not worth a dollar an hour to me now. Not in this form. And since the old Rovers are never coming back, I guess it’s goodbye to all that. Land Rover doesn’t want my business. They have the real housewives of Nashville now, I suppose.

I wish them all the best of luck.

[Images: ©2017 Jack Baruth/The Truth About Cars]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

61 Comments on “2017 Range Rover Evoque Rental Review – Modern Cimarron...”

  • avatar

    If I just *had* to have a faux British CUV/SUV, I’d go for the F-Pace, albeit for more money. At least it’s much nicer looking.

  • avatar

    E-Pace will be worse.

    The Evoque at least tries to capture what a RR is about even if it fails. The Jag is just two huge middle fingers to the entire brand.

    • 0 avatar

      Does it try?

      I always viewed the Evoque as, well, a way to cash in on the idea of a Range Rover, aimed at a market where nothing important about a Range Rover even matters.

      (I mean, there were aftermarket Shooting Brake conversions of Jaguars in the ’70, and it’s an *appropriate style* for the sort of vehicle, traditionally.

      The F-Pace might also keep Jaguar from dying, like the X-series and M-class.

      “But our brand just has no wagon-y things and cannot ever” means bankruptcy, okay?)

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Actually, aija is talking about the E-Pace, which is smaller than the F-Pace, and the direct platform counterpart (built atop a modified version of Ford’s transverse-engined EUCD platform) to the above Range Rover Evoque. The E-Pace isn’t, to my knowledge, in showrooms just yet, but it will be Jaguar’s second crossover.

        The E-Pace is related to the Range Rover Evoque and Discovery Sport.
        The bigger F-Pace is related to the Range Rover Velar.

        I wouldn’t buy an Evoque, but I think it’s honest to the Range Rover brand, especially its modern mission, within the confines of a compact, transverse platform.

        • 0 avatar

          Yes. I’m largely neutral on the F-Pace.

          The E-Pace with its upscale Sportage exterior, mid-level Sportage interior, baby cat Easter eggs, and down market Evoque market slot is what I’m expecting to suck.

  • avatar

    i hate the fake skid plate that rises too much to make itself seem. it looks like a maxi pad. it looks distinctive tho, unlike the disco sport. wonder if the sunshade kept out the light. i rented a xc60 2017 and there’s like no seams in the center console, just wood leather and the metallic/plastic. the gear selector has so many seams like a toy!! imo the velar is nicer but it’s literally the same soze as a forester and the black plastic cladding that reduces visual weight is just too much!! love the sleek interior design tho.

    • 0 avatar

      Its like a lot of CUVs in that it tries to make itself out to be rugged and sporty but really isnt.

      These things are $60-$90k here and I remember sitting in one when they came out and I though… why would you ever buy this? You’re paying Landcruiser money for faux luxury.

      If you look at the back seat you can tell this thing isnt a serious car for whats supposed to be a sort of CUV like a CRV but that car is actually useful.

      • 0 avatar
        The ultimate family-friendly hybrid vehicle is finally here.

        The market for this type of vehicle isn’t men, who care about what a car actually is. It’s for women, who only care about what other women will think about it.
        Unfortunately, the female influence in the marketplace has brought about the prevalence of overpriced SUVs and back-up cameras, and practically done away with the manual transmission.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          Most people (regardless of gender) think of their vehicle as an appliance, with reliability and TCO coming to the fore. SUV’s are hot right now; an no they’re not being exclusively driven by women. Today’s high trunk lines and small rear windows lead to back-up cameras. Now they’re required. NO, they don’t cost thousands of dollars. The whole manual transmission thing has been done to death on TTAC. Hell, it’s almost a bi-montly feature. I drive in DC traffic, millions of others drive in heavy urban traffic. That’s what did away with MT. -winks- Men will be paying for this vehicle and their lady’s inherent Pilates/yoga classes. And a WholeFoods run

          • 0 avatar

            Very few people think about the TCO, if they did Full size pickups would not be at the top of the sales charts and the Prius would be the best selling car period.

  • avatar
    Daniel J

    Nice Review Jack. I think for the money though, I’d take an F-Pace over this.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    The Truth About The Discovery.
    Good no punches pulled review.

    As for the F-Pace, when approaching one in a mall parking lot ‘Er Indoors’,had trouble telling the difference between the F-Pace and the 2 Rogues of a similar colour parked near it.

  • avatar

    Looks like I’ll not be trading my car for one of these anytime soon. Thank goodness!

  • avatar
    Car Ramrod

    Yes, we’re enthusiastic about our faux-lux CUVs here in Williamson county. Maybe I should move…

  • avatar

    Nice review, I actually had to Google what was a Cadillac Cimarron because I had it mixed up with a Catera. Nameplates which Cadillac would probably prefer everyone forget.

    • 0 avatar

      The Catera could have worn a Buick badge and been the Regal like it is now, as the Opel Omega had no real successor.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Applying the ‘Cimarron’ moniker to any car is equivalent to throwing your shoe at a Saudi prince – an insult of the highest order.

      Jack wouldn’t use the term lightly, and that tells me how bad this really is.

    • 0 avatar

      I like that Jack gave the review some nuance by specifically referencing the later V6 Cimarrons, as those weren’t *completely* bad. If you could mentally put aside the avalanche of criticism already levied against the model, the ’87s and ’88s had *some* positives. The “more-upscale looking Cavalier Z24 with a nicer interior” characterization essentially is true. (Disclosure: I got to drive a then-almost-new ’88 when running errands for its owner.)

  • avatar

    Nice review, calling out this fake piece of crap. I recall the Top Gear review which was just *so* overly complimentary because England.

  • avatar

    Jack, you must’ve been in Cool Springs.

  • avatar

    I learned to drive a standard transmission in an old Series IIa when I was a teenager. It breaks my heart to see Land Rover reduces to peddling this kind of pretentious crap.

  • avatar

    I have not driven an LR before, is the attraction about the view or the amount of sunlight it gets in the cabin? I do notice the extra amount of glass vs pillar space.

    That’s a huge pano roof.

  • avatar

    What the Freelander had in ground clearance and apparently in ice performance, it lacked in everything else…like…operating more than six weeks at a time.

    • 0 avatar

      Freelander’s patented guaranteed engine failure every 60,000 miles ensures better longevity.

    • 0 avatar

      Heh, seems about right. A friend’s younger brother bought a Freelander off a used car lot against my better advice of buying literally anything else. Made it 3 weeks before engine failure and the dealer telling him to get bent.

      • 0 avatar

        This happened to a friend of mine also. He was super stoked for me to ‘come check out my new wheels!’ A Freelander II with about 100k kilometers on the clock and out of warranty. I advised that he return it post haste, which I would not usually do as I’m not into bringing people down, especially with such a big purchase. He paid close to $18 grand.

        The thing did well to last 4 months. I got the call from the side of the freeway where the transmission had blown itself to bits. The initial repair bill came in at $10 grand, not including labour. He got $2 grand trade in on a Mitsubishi Outlander. Do your homework, kids.

    • 0 avatar

      That is a fun thread.

      I saw an immobile 1G Frelander a few months ago rotting away in a field. I was surprised because it was the first one I’ve seen since about 2012.

  • avatar

    160 MPH speed-o? Stupid. Counting in 20 MPH chunks? Also stupid.

    “At heart, the Evoque is a frivolous vehicle, meant for wives and girlfriends and au pairs to trundle between manor and mall.”

    You left off mistress and daddy’s little girl. But this list does explains why I see these things everywhere in Palm Beach County FL

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Many, many automakers have unrealistic 160 MPH speedometers. My mom’s ’05 Murano had one, and I’m almost confident my ’14 MKS does. Neither of those cars is getting to 160 MPH unless it is flung through the air by a violent tornado.

      Correction: it’s 140 MPH for the MKS.

      That said, the top speed for the Evoque—with the new-for-2018 optional 286 horsepower engine—is as high as 144 MPH, so a 160 MPH speedometer isn’t outrageous.

      • 0 avatar

        I can not image the shear terror of driving one these wagons-on-stilts at anything over 120. It just seems silly to even suggest to the owner they have the possibility of pegging that dial.

  • avatar

    I think every vehicle in this class, no matter the manufacturer, should be called the PSL. Acura PSL. Range Rover PSL. Jag PSL, Lexus PSL. Whoever PSL. It would clearly define the intended mission and buyer demographic.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the new 2018 (Insert near luxury manufacturer here) Pumpkin Spice Latte.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Nice review.

    I 100% fail to see the reason for this pile to exist.
    I cant help but compare the LR to the extended cab 1LT Silverado to the National folks. Most likely a 10k cheaper unit to buy new that will last 3x longer in real world use with half the maintenance expense.

  • avatar

    “a 17-speaker Meridian sound system that is probably quite nice.”

    not so much. it’s one of those where I thought “you had 17 speakers and 800 watts, and *this* is what you did with it?”

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    To be fair, the other Range Rovers (Velar, Sport, the big one) are a lot better. Well, I haven’t driven the Velar, but I have driven the other two. I wouldn’t write off the brand unless your heart genuinely is set upon a rugged, utilitarian SUV with upright, British styling. You’re right. that ain’t coming back. The closest thing is probably the new JL Wrangler.

    Also, I don’t think yours has the 237 horsepower engine. I think it has the 240 horsepower engine. That’s an important distinction because through 2017, the Range Rover Evoque (and other four-cylinder-equipped J/LR models) have had a 240 HP Ford EcoBoost engine. But for 2018–in the North American market, at least–the Range Rover Evoque gets J/LR’s new in-house 237 HP Ingenium 2.0T engine, part of a modular family of inline engines. It might be markedly better than the EcoBoost unit. In addition, there’s an optional 2.0T Ingenium engine with 286 HP.

    But I agree. The Range Rover Evoque isn’t a car I could see myself buying, especially because the inherently-superior Jaguar F-Pace is in the same pricing territory.

  • avatar

    Nice, if sad, review. I’ll add it to my list of references on the next “Modern Trannies Have Made Manuals Obsolete” comment thread.

  • avatar

    I shudder to think about being married to a woman that would exclaim “That’s your Evoque? I LOVE THEM SO MUCH I’M ASKING MY HUSBAND FOR ONE FOR CHRISTMAS!”

  • avatar
    el scotto

    YOU!! No women in yoga pants for you! The real question; do you spend more and get a Stelvio or do you go declasse and get an Escape Titanium? Decisions, decisions amongst the galleria crawlers.

  • avatar

    Still got my 1999 4.0
    Still running strong
    Air bags still work!

    The exhaust rusted off, but I built one myself and now I get the burblywurbly V8 noises.

    The thing is unstoppable with KO2 tires.

  • avatar

    How does it make sense to have gunslit windows where you need to see, and a huge window in the roof that only the rare rear seat occupants can look up at nothing?

    This thing is ample proof of the amazing power of marketing. To people who insist they think for themselves.

  • avatar

    Your picture shows you know how to put two patterns together, how about a story that describes a vehicle that has vastly improved? Just to improve morale.

  • avatar
    spreadsheet monkey

    So in summary, it looks OK, women love it, the automatic gearbox is poor, the interior is OK, the infotainment is slow-witted, and it *appears* not to have much off-road ability.

    That’s not a glowing review, but it’s hardly a disaster for a vehicle that has been around for 6 years and is due to be replaced by a new model in 2019.

    Perhaps LR can arrange for Jack to try the Evoque on a proper off-road course next time he is in the UK.

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    While traditionalists of the marque may not like the cute -versions we just took delivery of a CPO Discovery Sport HSE ’17 Sport in fetching Loire blue over tan leather.It replaced on 08 Ml350, which had been trouble free, but my wife wanted something more stylish when she didn’t have to drive the minivan and we got a really good deal , as there stacks of Disco Sports which are service loaners for the RR crowd.


    -While I’m not a fan of turbo 4 (outside of hot hatches) it gets 30mpg on the highway which the gasoline MB couldn’t sneak up on.

    – Over 8 inches of ground clearance for the deep snow
    -pretty sporty handling compared to at least our old MB
    -nicer interior compared to (RDX,FPace,MDX)
    – much larger feeling than cramped feeling GLC, easier step in for my wife than XT5
    -can get a darker tan interior than the white only or black leather than VW offers in new Tiguan
    -available with luxury options-available with luxury options without having to buy 19 inch wheels
    -bumper to bumper 6 yr warranty on CPO /100k
    -proven duratec 4cyl , not sure I trust a JLR only drivetrain
    -at least better /bigger touch screen than a 2016 JLR, I’m not a dash fiddler so I never get the complaints for ICE like professional reviewers
    -so far not a rattle trap, even the monster sunroof
    – cool app that can start car and turn on heated seats from my office chair
    -bumper to bumper 6 yr warranty on CPO /100k
    – has a volume knob
    -not made in China
    – I miss the off idle torque of a V6 drivetrain
    – The transmission programming is a bit goofy, but not as bad as our Enclave was, and probably has been improved since 2015 launch, but I don’t really notice it being in the wrong gear much. Perhaps I just adjusted my driving style. I suppose if it was a sports sedan I would be more critical.
    -the front seats are not as long haul comfortable as the MB when we drove from Chi to KC
    -the car refuses to auto connect my LG phone if my wife was the last driver, even if mine’s the only phone in the car
    -if your’re a satellite radio fan you have to ante up for at least mid level Meridian sound system (which is a rare option if you’re buying used, hence our trip to Chicago dealer)
    -the mid level Meridian stereo sounds tinny, not very warm at all, I have no idea why LR puts such small front drivers in their car. It livens up at higher volume , but overall a downgrade from the HK system in the ML
    -I miss having a CD player… they just sound better
    -the power folding mirrors, which was a must have option (and ruled out the new CX9), don’t fold as flat out as other OEMs do
    -sparse dealer network, we only have one, although they are pleasant, they’re not as willing to deal which I understand given the low volumes
    -there is a bit of the “you got the cheap one” glance occasionally , if anyone cares about that sort of thing

    • 0 avatar
      spreadsheet monkey

      The Discovery Sport is a nice car. I might be tempted to trade our 2013 CRV against one in a couple of years.

      Starts at $38k in the USA, significantly less than the Evoque that Jack tested. It’s a good family car, less girly than the Evoque, with more functionality and less tinsel.

  • avatar

    Well, there’s sixteen thousand, eight hundred and twenty one mothers in Nashville. All their friends play music and they ain’t uptight if one of the kids will. Cause it’s custom made for any mother’s son to be a guitar picker in Nashville. And I sure am glad I had a chance to say a word the music and the mothers from Nashville.

    And that’s all I gotta say about that.

  • avatar

    Sometimes a car manufacturer will make a car that stuns the world defining a new sector of the market. When Land Rover launched the Evoque German car bosses cried into their beer because Land Rover had made the first truly desirable small SUV, since then many me too SUVs have tried to pull off the same trick with mixed sucess. This car is now ancient and is coming up for replacement and yet it remains hugely popular. Meanwhile Range Rover continues to make the best luxury offroad car on the planet and Land Rover gears up to launch the Defender. Without car makers gambling on cars like the Evoque there would be no new Defenders and cars like thd Mini might never have been made. Personally id love an Evoque mostly because it wont depreciate like a BMW.

  • avatar

    Freeloaders were craptastic from day one. As I recall they had flexible plastic front fenders and were NOT reliable. I worked for a large luxury dealership in St Louis, and while LOTS of people would lease ONE LR or RR, they would invariably migrate over to the Lexus or Cadillac store after that first lease, and get an Escalade or Lexus SUV of some sort…something that would start in the morning.

    I love the concept of Rovers, the execution leaves me cold. I want to drive a vehicle, not a fashion accessory.

  • avatar

    Achebe and Graves in the same review? Layering in a British Empire theme on the down-low, maybe?

  • avatar

    I think the Cimarron comparison is a bit harsh. This is a far better vehicle than the tarted up Chevy Cavalier ever was.

    That said, they are hugely over-priced and adding any options only cranks that up into Velar territory. Make no mistake, that’s the model that shows you know the brand and a good value.

    BTW, the Rangie Sport is now on the same platform as the standard model, rather than a Disco borrow. And if you want a proper shitter, try the new Disco.

  • avatar

    All they’re really selling here is a brand name. The Evoque has about as much in common with a traditional Range Rover as a new BMW 320i has with an E30. Zippo. They sell to aspirational realtors who lease a new “premium” crapcan every few years. The quality and functional capabilities of the vehicle don’t matter; it’s the logo on the hood and that’s it. The fact that a Camry or CX5 or whatever would do the same thing for two thirds of the money is completely irrelevant. Judging from the number of these things I see around the Boston area, they’ll sell every one they can crank out.

    • 0 avatar

      And there will be another thread on Edmunds about how and why their Land Rover can possibly be having all manner of mechanical and software issues. And there will be still yet another generation of this vehicle and yet another thread on Edmunds about why and how….ehhh you all get the picture.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Oberkanone: “What’s good for Wyoming may not really make sense in California.” Agree with your statement...
  • Art Vandelay: the babies you kill even it out
  • Art Vandelay: “I prefer the Delmont 88” – Ted Kennedy
  • Art Vandelay: scroll by if you dont like it cheese d!ck
  • Arthur Dailey: McDonalds first opened in Russia in January of 1990. It was the Canadian McDonalds’ operations...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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