By on February 19, 2018

Image: Mazda USA

Back in January, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration listed crash test ratings for the 2018 Mazda 6 in two distinctive flavors: the front-wheel model and the… all-wheel-drive variant? Wait a minute, Mazda isn’t making an AWD drive version of the sedan. Right?

While there’s been plenty of confirmation for the Mazda’s new 2.5-liter turbocharged engine, we hadn’t heard anything about all-wheel drive. When questioned, the automaker said it couldn’t say anything about it one way or the other. However, Mazda North America CEO Masahiro Moro has admitted there could be a layout issue that would make pairing the new engine with all-wheel drive exceedingly difficult. 

It may have become too troublesome to even pursue the effort, as all mentions of the AWD Mazda 6 appear to have vanished from the NHTSA’s website. Moro said he still wants all-wheel action to play a part in Mazda’s future.

“I think we are not able to combine four-wheel drive and the 2.5-liter turbo. We have a layout issue with the sedans, that’s why a four-wheel drive isn’t deployed on the Mazda 3 and 6 so far,” Moro told CarAdvice. “Four-wheel drive becomes a premium queue for US consumers and obviously I have asked our R&D department to think about how we can accommodate four-wheel drive capability in the future.”

Tapping down the remaining nails in the all-wheel drive sedan’s coffin is CarBuzz, which noticed the 2018 model is now certified for sale in California. While the 6 can be had with either a naturally aspirated or turbocharged engine, the California Air Resource Board doesn’t include a secondary line for drive type. Likewise, the Environmental Protection Agency’s fuel economy listings didn’t differentiate between FWD and AWD for the 2018 model year.

Since it’s unlikely that Mazda dropped the front-drive configuration to pursue an unproven AWD version of the sedan exclusively, it looks like that new turbo engine will remain the cornerstone of this year’s mechanical updates. Taking into account what Moro said, we wouldn’t expect to see an AWD version until after the current generation of the Mazda6 is retired.

Sorry, folks. There’s always Subaru.

[Image: Mazda]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

71 Comments on “All-wheel-drive Mazda 6 Prospects Looking Very Iffy...”


  • avatar
    kurtamaxxguy

    “Premium Queue” ???? No idea why Mazda makes that claim as there’s plenty of mass market vehicles with AWD available in the USA ___and___ cruising our roads. Perhaps Mazda feels AWD’s an extra, but having driven Subarus for nearly 9 years and Quattro Audis on various occasions, and noting how well AWD handles situations that flummoxes FWD and RAD, AWD seems a good choice for all but the RWD-oriented enthusiast drivers.

    • 0 avatar
      dtremit

      I think Moro means Mazda recognizes that it’s something premium buyers *expect*, but they can’t make it work on the current car.

      That said, Mazda seems to be having a bit of a Volkswagen problem these days — they can’t seem to get features into their cars that US buyers want. Having just shopped for a compact crossover, I really wanted to make a case for the CX-5; it handles beautifully. But after renting one for a few days, 185HP and dated electronics ended up knocking it out of consideration.

      Had they offered it with that same 2.5T and the infotainment update they promised two years ago, I probably would have pulled the trigger — even at a price premium.

  • avatar
    conundrum

    Hello torque steer. Goodbye interest.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Not waiting until 2020 for Apple Carplay?

    • 0 avatar
      tnk479

      I recently picked up the Accord Sport 2.0T and it has torque steer if you mash the throttle but it’s completely controllable. Would I rather have all-wheel-drive? Sure, But I got this car for under 27 whereas the A4 is at least 13k more. It’s a fun car for the money.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Did you have a trade-in? The faster Malibu 2.0T is faster and more efficient for $24K on autotrader. The 2018 Regal Sportback 2.0T MSRP is $24,999 and has a longer 4 years, 50,000 mile warranty.

        • 0 avatar
          tnk479

          No trade in.

          I am shocked Buick still exists and I would never drive one regardless. I am sure the Malibu is a decent car but I didn’t consider it.

          • 0 avatar
            VW4motion

            I’m no Buick fan. Yet that brand is going not going under anytime soon. It is one of the biggest imports for China. And they are making some great vehicles right now.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Buick sells mare than Acura, Infiniti, Jaguar…. With the 15-25% discounts I don’t think it costs them that much in platform tweaking from other cars in the GM portfolio.

            Both the Regal & Malibu 2.0T out handle the Accord 2.0T 10-speed in MT figure-8 test. Thr Accord is just now catching up as this recipe has been done for years.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Well, this breaks the heart of about 134 potential buyers in North America.

    • 0 avatar
      VW4motion

      I’d say about the states and all of Canada would be doing pretty well selling an awd Mazda 6 and 3. The only real affordable awd is a Subaru. Not everyone loves their Subaru’s. But they love the awd.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The lack of AWD is the least of the problems with the 6.

    Mazda is superb at chasing shiny marbles and ignoring real issues.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      I can think of three real issues that come up over and over again – rust, power, and refinement. We know they’ve taken care of power, I believe several have said that the 6’s refinement level has improved since this generation was released, and I’ve yet to see a rusty 2nd gen 3/6 (when the 1rst gen of both were visibly starting to rust about 5 years in). So, what else are they ignoring?

      I think their real problem is that they don’t have what it takes for mainstream success (well, discounting the year or two the 3 was in the running for best selling car in Canada), and the niche they have the strengths to court is shrinking.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    Good – it’s a pointless extra expense on a car that will never go off-pavement. Especially in the half of the country that doesn’t even have real winter.

  • avatar
    Mike-NB

    I may be pilloried for this, but I’m not sold on the need for AWD in everything. And I say that as someone who lives in a part of Canada where winters are a real thing. Just over a year ago I bought my first car with AWD – a ’17 MKZ 3.0L. AWD is the only way that car comes in Canada and to ensure the 400HP I would have opted for AWD anyway. But in several winter storms I toggled on the AWD screen to see what the car was doing and, as expected, the rear wheels did little work.

    Sure, I get that for high-performance driving AWD will have advantages, but it seems to me that the average driver would be fine forgoing the added weight and complexity and stick with front-wheel drive.

    Maybe the same ‘gotta have it’ mentality that drives the move from cars to CUVs is behind the whole push to put AWD under everything.

    Two caveats to my story – I always use brand-name winter tires and replace them earlier than needed to get as much traction as possible. And unlike the younger version of myself, I now just don’t bother driving in really bad conditions. Getting a loaf of bread in the middle of a major blizzard just isn’t necessary.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Mike-NB, well said. I hear the argument of “added security” and then ask those family members when they last got stuck with their FWD cars. Why, never is the answer!

      For some, sure. Without question. But for most, even those who live areas where there are two or three two “empty the supermarket in panic” storms a year like where I live it really is not required.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I’m not going to pillory you one bit for that. AWD is a “nice to have,” not a “need to have.”

      Frankly, if things are so hairy that I’d *need* AWD to get around, I’d be inclined to stay home instead.

    • 0 avatar
      dougjp

      Mike, I also agree completely. AWD adds around 200 lbs. generally. Then it adds parasitic drag through the system. Then it gives improved traction when it isn’t really required most of the time.

      The result is we need at least 40 more HP and torque to offset the drop in driving excitement caused by AWD just to break even, so to speak.

      What this means in real life is, any 2.0 turbo is no longer “adequate” in terms of power and torque to weight to give enjoyment anywhere near the cost for value that enthusiasts are looking for, eliminating most possibilities unless price is no object. Sure some AWD 2.0’s will tell us they can do X to 60, but its only because of AWD and massive driveline stress that the numbers just make the grade.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        A ecu tuned Ecotec 2.0T can see 350 lb-ft of torque on 87 octane. :)

        • 0 avatar
          thornmark

          you lose:

          The Accord does better:

          “the Stage 1 reflashed Accord at 276 hp and a healthy 332 lb-ft to the wheels using California’s 91 octane gas…. Stage 2 tune showing peak torque of 375.8 lb-ft–a gain of about 80 lb-ft over Hondata’s baseline figure. Additionally, the Stage 2 reflash adds 50-55 hp in the middle of the power band, which is said to dramatically affect the driving experience.”
          http://www.motortrend.com/news/get-civic-type-r-power-on-your-2018-honda-accord-2-0t/

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Sorry, thornmark the Honda 2.0T is catching the GM Ecotec 2.0T LTG in MT ATS4 2.0T making 390 lb-ft of torque….with 90,000 miles on it.

            Nice to see Honda finally catching up though. Just have to work on Toyota mow and their lack of turbo-4’s.

    • 0 avatar
      Tele Vision

      This year I put Michelin Winter tires on my wife’s AWD Equinox for the first time. I rarely drive it but, when I did last month, it felt amazingly sure-footed on snow – far better than my truck does in 4-High and on General Grabber AT2s. I’d wager the rears on her car don’t do much anymore, either. It may be underpowered but it grips like a cat on the curtains.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @Mike-NB: Totally agree.

      Here in hilly, snowy Pittsburgh, I could use AWD maybe 1% of the year (yes, 3 days).

      It is ironic that our culture also demands clean roads from the local governments, so the ‘need’ for AWD is actually less than it was 50 years ago, plus, many of us can work from home on the really bad days.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Having used chains to get up steep snowy roads four times so far this winter, with awd and winter tires, I can attest that some find awd a useful improvement on 2wd.

      Fwd has the added liabilities of shifting weight off the driving wheels the steeper the grade, the heavier the load and the more sudden the start.

      But yes, to some extent awd is being pushed by the car makers to make cars more elaborate and expensive.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        In many places, like CO and NM, if you have AWD you can get by with studded winter tires (like Blizzaks) and forego the tedious mounting/dismounting of the chains.

        • 0 avatar
          TTCat

          Having lived in the Colorado high country for over 30 years, I have never seen the need for studded tires or chains, ever. My AWD Audis and FWD vehicles equipped with decent winter radials never had any issue getting anywhere.

          Even my current Cayman with Dunlop Performance snows does just fine in almost all situations where clearance allows, and if it comes to that, I just drag out the Wrangler with the Goodrich ATs…

    • 0 avatar
      S197GT

      i agree. when shopping for my ’17 fusion last year i briefly considered awd. but the idea of lugging all that weight around for next to no benefit and reduced fuel mileage and added cost/maintenance quickly made it a non-starter.

      if i drove like i used to i could see the benefit in reduced wheel spin but these days speed only happens in a straight line on an interstate.

      having said all that, i would always love an lsd option…

  • avatar
    ajla

    AWD likely would have helped the launch on this thing. Without it I’m worried it’ll either be strangled by “torque management” tuning or be Torque Steer City.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      AWD has always been THE selling point for Subaru and Jeep, and both have done well with it, developing a following all their own and getting converts over time.

      The Mazda6 is a real blast to drive, a little noisy on the inside maybe, but with driving characteristics patterned after the BMW 5-series.

      Some say the normally aspirated 4-banger Mazda6 may be a bit underpowered. But if it is patterned on a BMW 525, I’d say Mazda did a good job copying it. Underpowered and all.

      • 0 avatar
        Reino

        The 6’s stance actually looks like it is RWD. Imagine if they swapped the entire drivetrain, turbocharged it, and made it a proper sports sedan!

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Mazda does outstanding reverse engineering but I think their limitations are available R&D funds. Mazda is a small automaker.

          My personal experience with Mazda goes back decades when I bought used Mazda cars for my kids when they still lived at home.

          The used 626 and 929 sedans I bought lasted my sons through HS, four years of college and two years of University, with nary a problem or repair expense, except wear and tear.

          And when they each joined the Marine Corps they took their Mazdas with them and drove them until the wheels fell off. You gotta love that!

          I hated to see the Mazda V6 engines replaced with squirrels. The next thing we’ll see in Mazda will be CVTs.

          Economizing! To me it’s just cheapening. And it is the wave of the future.

          Just look at the venerable Accord, now with CVT.

          Disgusting.

  • avatar
    jh26036

    Those wanting AWD out of their big comfy sedan can head straight to the local Ford dealer and buy a Fusion Sport. For a leftover 2017 car, it’s like $8k off sticker and a stripper model should leave the dealer around $27k before TTL. There’s no market for this Mazda. They can pull the plug now save themselves a few bucks.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      Don’t even need to spend the money for the Sport. The Fusion offers AWD in the SE model. For those that really want big and comfy, the Taurus also offers AWD. Put winter tires on either of these vehicles and you’re nearly unstoppable.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Put winter tires on the FWD versions and you are just about as unstoppable for a lot less money. Upfront, in gas, and in repairs.

        If the roads are so bad AWD makes a difference, stay put. Some idiot on no seasons is just going to slide into you anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Fusion Sport at $27K is thr steal here. That is less than a Accord 2.0T or a Camry V6 and you are getting AWD, 280hp/325trq.

      These older models like 2017 Buick Regal FWD can be had for $16K right now.

  • avatar
    don1967

    AWD is truly beneficial for maybe 5% of those who buy it.

    For the other 95% all it does is increase ownership cost and keep the trade-in carrousel turning. They would be better served by FWD and four average snow tires.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      This is an enthusiast site, correct? AWD offers torque vectoring, which increases handling, even in dry conditions.

      Four average snow tires, and changing them out twice a year also increases TCO. Unlike AWD, it does nothing for resale value.

      As someone who has snow tires on a FWD vehicle and all season tires on an AWD vehicle, there are times the FWD is just as good. There are more times the AWD is better.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Are there really many times where awd is “better” AND the extreme tightness between wheel and wheelwell typical of modern mpg optimized sedans isn’t at least as big a deal as the lack of awd? The A8 has as good an AWD system as any, Acura perhaps excepted, yet it’s no Q7 for getting to the slopes on powder days…

        Going from a fwd sedan to an awd cuv, nets you awd AND a bigger rolling circumference tire AND more wheelwell clearance. Which does combine to make the cuv better suited for snowwy climates. But picking just one of the above, strikes me as a bit of neither here nor there.

        If there are hilly places with little snowfall, but persistently slippery roads and driveways, I can see the point. But I have little experience with those.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        AWD and all season tires won’t help you stop or go around corners in ice and snow. 2wd w/ ice/snow tires that are narrower than summer tires and put on separate wheels are far superior in those conditions.

        AWD is an expense that you do not recover w/ resale – when extra maintenance and fuel are factored in.

      • 0 avatar
        don1967

        “Four average snow tires, and changing them out twice a year also increases TCO.”

        All vehicles driven in snow need snow tires.

        And by “need” I’m not talking about some esoteric justification, as in “I need AWD torque vectoring to go around a corner”. I mean “Without snow tires your AWD vehicle will be banging into a lot of curbs and taking forever to stop”.

        Been there, done that, won’t ever do it again.

    • 0 avatar
      N8iveVA

      This round I skipped AWD as I didn’t feel I really needed it, and I regret it for drivability alone. With the torque of my 2.0T and FWD I frequently have moments where pulling into traffic and the boost is up and the front wheels unexpectedly break loose. I feel that AWD helps smooth out the power delivery of todays torquey turbos.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Try turning wheel and punch it merge into a opening in traffic on wet surfaces. You’ll be glad you had AWD on your turbo-4.

      Now if you have Subaru with 180 lb-ft of torque to propel you it probably wouldn’t matter unless the tires were low on tread depth and dried out.

  • avatar
    dror

    Back in 2006, I owned a 2.3 liter Mazda 3, then, in 2011, 2.5 liter Mazda 3.
    In Jan of 2014, I got a 2.4 liter Accord sport, super simple car but much bigger than the 3, stronger and faster, even with the CVT.
    Now, with all the promises of a turbo 6, it’s a little strange Mazda is coming up with a turbo 2.5 liter and 227HP???
    An Accord 2.0 liter turbo is rated at 252HP, a Camry 2.5 liter none turbo is rated at 203HP.
    Where is all that ZoomZoom go ???

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      Never really had zoom zoom.

    • 0 avatar
      tnk479

      Just bought that Accord Sport 2.0T with the 10-speed. It’s reasonably fun. The steering is sharp for a family car. It’s got 19 inch wheels, it corners flat, it has minimal squat and dive, and it’s just about as quick as an A4 or a 330, yet it’s still comfortable and a nice road trip car. It’s more fun to drive than the 2015 328 xDrive that I just turned in. Sedan sales may continue to languish but Honda is on to something here.

      • 0 avatar
        Reino

        The Accord is more comfortable than the A4 and 328i because those are a smaller class. The Accord is the same size as a 5-series. I’d love to read an honest comparison to see how the Accord stacks up.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        Baruth gave a very good review here, in effect said Accord was better than a recent German sedan – a long wheelbase – he tested and very best of class, except the Accord is really in its own class – it’s that superior:
        http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a13818067/2018-honda-accord-review/

        btw, flash it up
        http://www.motortrend.com/news/get-civic-type-r-power-on-your-2018-honda-accord-2-0t/

    • 0 avatar
      Veeg

      250 on premium gas and 310 lb/ft of torque, which is a whopping 37 lb/ft better than that Accord. Considering it has a real transmission instead of a CVT I imagine it’ll drive a lot better than the Honda.

      It’s also not hideously ugly like the new Accord.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        That’s very uninformed of you. THe Accord offers a manual and 10 speed w/ that engine.

        The Accord does better:

        “the Stage 1 reflashed Accord at 276 hp and a healthy 332 lb-ft to the wheels using California’s 91 octane gas…. Stage 2 tune showing peak torque of 375.8 lb-ft–a gain of about 80 lb-ft over Hondata’s baseline figure. Additionally, the Stage 2 reflash adds 50-55 hp in the middle of the power band, which is said to dramatically affect the driving experience.”
        http://www.motortrend.com/news/get-civic-type-r-power-on-your-2018-honda-accord-2-0t/

        So w/ the Accord you get a much better car w/ more power and better transmissions than the Mazda. And many think the Accord looks a class above the old Mazda.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Not all of us are interested in reflashing our vehicles. If going to Hondata or Cobb or APR or Trifecta interests people then go for it, but it isn’t something I’m ever going to do on a new car.

          I care about how the *stock* 2.0t Accord performs against the *stock* Mazda6 Turbo. And I don’t mean on a dyno, I want to see actual head-to-head acceleration testing.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          Actually the $24,999 2018 Regal Sportback has similar interior dimensions, offers 2.0T, and up to 295 lb-ft of torque with AWD option. The Buick also includes a longer, standard warranty than does the Honda.

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      This 227HP number is based on 87 octane fuel. If you need the extra 23HP, put premium fuel in it. The Mazda 6 2.5T will be rated the same as in the CX-9, which gives 250HP on premium fuel.

      If you won’t spend an extra $15 for a tankful of premium, then you clearly didn’t need the extra power.

      This quibbling over numbers is really almost pedantic anyway. I think 250HP is enough for a family car weighing about 3,200 pounds. Even with 227HP, do you really think this Mazda 6 is going to be a slow car? Bear in mind that it still has 310LB-FT of torque on 87 octane.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Thr current 6 is behind in figure-8 times at MT. If Mazda adds 150 lbs to the engine bay, it is going to take some battery-to-trunk relocating or some other trickery beside G-activ to make it competitive.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    The current Mazda 6 is a fine car. Just think of when it was first released…..it was the second coming according to just about everybody writing about cars in print and on the interwebs. So why doesn’t it sell? It’s not because of hardware, power, lack of AWD. It’s specs are spot on with most everything in the midsized segment, costs roughly the same, looks better, drives better. So why then?

    It’s because people are happy with their Toyotas, Hondas, Ford’s. Mazda has small dealership network, minimal advertising dollars, no captive lending arm to push the metal with heavy incentives, and most importantly, no massive and loyal customer base. That’s really what Mazda needs to build. Building quality, well performing, attractive cars is the way to get there, but they aren’t there. So, AWD or a more powerful 6 may not be hot sellers, but it moves the needle. That’s what needs to happen as often as possible for Mazda to increase volume and loyalty.

    In the mean time, Mazda’s small fanbase has been the beneficiary of design and engineering meant to rake in conquests. Personally, it’s the sort of vehicle I love to buy. A vehicle designed to punch above it’s weight but a slow seller that can be had at reasonable price. Perfect!

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    The atmosphere in this locale is about 25% NaCl. Not good for Mazdas, which oxidize in Death Valley.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    Without AWD, Mazda is doomed. It’s what the market wants. The only reason Chevy doesn’t go AWD in their cars is they sell so many trucks and SUVs they give a rat’s ass about cars.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Mazda offers it on the CX-5 and I believe other models.

      • 0 avatar
        Lightspeed

        True, I stand corrected. However, their CUVs don’t sell in the numbers and at profit margins that trucks do, hence, without AWD across the board, they may not survive. Mazdas are nice cars, really beautiful in fact, but their SkyActiv tech seems to fall on deaf ears, despite how good it is. An all AWD lineup might be something they can leverage more easily with the public than the sophistication of SKyActiv engineering.

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      In the luxury market, where people are already spending over $50k on a vehicle, an additional $5k for AWD doesn’t make a huge impact. In the mainstream and near-luxury market, where transaction prices range from $18k to $40k, the extra $5k makes a huge difference.

      Besides that, AWD is almost useless for about 1/2 of US consumers in any part of the year. And in the snowy states, it’s still useless about 2/3 of the year.

      For sedans, consumers don’t choose AWD even 1/3 of the time. Go look at listings of Ford Fusions (which has been available in FWD and AWD for quite a while). Even in the northeast USA, the number of listings for AWD Fusions is less than 12% of the total.

      For SUVs, AWD is considered more important. Consider the Ford Escape. In the northeast USA, the number of sale listings for AWD Escapes are about 80% of the total. But if you look nationwide, the AWD Escapes are only about 50% of the total.

      My point is, some people want AWD. Some people don’t care. And some people actively avoid AWD. To assume that the entire vehicle market will go AWD is not substantiated by the facts.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Chevy doesn’t offer AWD on their cars, because Buick can.

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    So how did NHTSA obtain a crash rest result for a car that Mazda can’t make? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    “…. Mazda 6 Prospects Looking Very Iffy”

    I doubt Mazda will be spending much on the 6 – a very fine car, especially compared to Nissan’s unfortunate commerce, aka rental cars.

    Mazda likely loses money on the 6 in the US – I believe they are imported from Japan.. Mazda makes money on UV’s. Do the math.

  • avatar
    NoID

    The stated reason for likely not achieving an AWD solution for this vehicle is completely believable for me.

    My time working in the automotive industry has taught me that most of the time it is packaging constraints that kill powertrain / driveline projects. So many of the cool cars that you wish the OEMs would build weren’t stopped by penny pinching, a lack of creativity, or the Illuminati. Stuff just doesn’t fit together.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    AWD + turbo will price this thing in dangerous territory. Mazda needs to figure out what the hell its doing.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      When you can get a new 2017 Buick Regal 2.0T with AWD for under $24K, that is a tough sell and better off just torque limiting it in lower gears or with steer angle limiting.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dougjp: A waste of time and talent. Instead after all these years has anyone listened while countless upscale...
  • Hummer: “Here in BC, my F350 insurance alone was 1900/yr. And that was with a full 43 % safe old fart discount.”...
  • trackratmk1: Assuming for a moment that widespread electrification comes to pass, what are the differentiators going...
  • jacob_coulter: Less taxes are not the same thing as a handout.
  • sgeffe: Next time, he’ll buy the damned TruCoat! “You’re darn tootin’, I gotta deal for ya!”

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States