By on November 16, 2020

On Monday, the Canadian province of Quebec announced it would be joining California and numerous European locales in the banning of gasoline-powered automobiles. Announced during a meeting regarding the region’s green economy plan, the French-speaking province said all new vehicles sold after 2035 would have to be entirely electric. Then there was a slight derailment as Premier François Legault used the occasion to publicly decry that it was “totally unacceptable” that some shop owners in Montreal are failing to greet customers in French and that the situation needed to be remedied immediately. Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante agreed, saying “clients must be able to get served in French. Period.”

One battle at a time, heroes. Justice will be served (and in glorious French) to those English-speaking heathens and their foul-smelling cars soon enough.

Quebec’s environmental strategy envisions utopia only after reducing greenhouses gases 37.5 percent by 2030 (vs 1990 levels). According to Reuters, leadership also plans to spend $5.1 billion plan over five years to meet the goal and further incentivize electric vehicle purchases. The Québécois government website noted the region it would like to see 1.5 million EVs on provincial roads by 2030.

From Reuters:

Quebec will also renew the rebates on the purchase or rental of an electric vehicle and charging stations for citizens. Currently, the government offers individuals, businesses, organizations and Quebec municipalities a rebate of up to $6,100 on the purchase or lease of a new electric vehicle.

The government said it will also do its part by electrifying its provincial fleet of light vehicles as much as possible so that by 2030, 100 percent of its cars, vans and SUVs, as well as 25 percent of its pickups, will be electric.

The ban will bring Quebec in line with other jurisdictions such as California, the largest U.S. auto market, which in September announced a move to electric vehicles starting in 2035.

The Canadian province of British Columbia has already moved to phase out fuel-powered cars and trucks over a two-decade period, with a total ban on their sale or lease coming into effect in 2040.

Despite a large number of global leaders promising comprehensive, net-zero emissions plans, we’re dubious as to anybody achieving their environmental goals within the next decade. EV development is progressing more slowly than the industry had originally anticipated and there are real questions as to the sustainability of widespread electrification — especially without a complete and costly overhaul to the supporting infrastructure. We’ve already seen a few of these suggested internal combustion bans get pushed back by five years or more and imagine governments will continue moving the goalpost until circumstances actually allow for carbon neutrality.

It’s wonderful to see so many world leaders thinking about the future so often. But most of us have to live in the real world until it manages to catch up with the dream.

[Image: Jim Barber/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

69 Comments on “Quebec Banning Gasoline Dependent Passenger Vehicles in 2035...”


  • avatar
    SD 328I

    Well, banning the sale of new ICE cars by 2035 if they are following California’s lead.

    Not banning gas vehicles altogether.

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      Title is misleading, probably intentionally. Fake news.

      • 0 avatar
        WalterRohrl

        No doubt, the Editor In Chief here had pretty much the same exact headline when California announced the same thing which he then edited for clarification after being questioned about it but not until it was up for a while. But to see it happen again a few months later with the same Editor in charge of the site is disappointing. Or, as you indicate, probably by design.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    Well meaning and ambitious plan but will probably be the greatest gift EVER to any dealership bordering Quebec. I assume that Quebec will not be able to keep out vehicles purchased in other provinces or prevent the registration of any lawfully owned vehicle.

    • 0 avatar
      CKNSLS Sierra SLT

      thegamper-
      I wouldn’t assume that. When they passed the “French Language Mandate”-there was no work around. Either you learned French, and conducted your business in French-or you moved your business out of the province. The government in Quebec doesn’t mess around. And yes-some did move their business. Many older Lawyers who didn’t want to become proficient in the French language moved-or quite practicing.

      BTW-I have spent time there. And the people pf Quebec speak English (for the most part) as well as they do French.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Ah, so the government up there is racist…got it.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Everyone, everywhere, who ever lived, is as such EXCEPT those making the claim. You didn’t know that? /s

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Ah, so the government up there is racist…got it”

          @Art Vandelay – the province of Quebec is arguing the contrary. All public displays of religious symbols including Christian one’s will be banned from any government facility. Anyone working for a public institution will not be able to display or wear religious items. Anyone requesting services in a public facility will have to “show their faces” if wearing religious attire.
          If one goes back in time, the Roman Catholic Church was more powerful than the Government of Quebec. Quebec has become one of the most secular province in Canada arguably because of backlash against the Catholic Church.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “When they passed the “French Language Mandate”-there was no work around.”

            “Anyone requesting services in a public facility will have to ‘show their faces’ if wearing religious attire.”

            To me that sounds like state-enforced intolerance against Muslims and xenophobic language laws but maybe I’m misunderstanding.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “To me that sounds like state-enforced intolerance against Muslims and xenophobic language laws but maybe I’m misunderstanding.”

            @ajla – It is being sold as the complete “neutral” secularization of Quebec public institutions. Christian symbolism will also have to be removed. It isn’t restricted to just visible minorities. If a Roman Catholic Nun in a full habit entered a public facility she’d also have to uncover her face.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            That sounds like a terrible law to me, requiring citizens to reject their religious beliefs in order to receive government services. But it’s not my country.

          • 0 avatar
            Mackey

            Being ‘woke’ and being racist are not mutually exclusive.

            Some of the greatest injustices are the ones that are done under the vail of good intentions.

            Separately, whenever anyone tried to pass or enforce a law for English as the official language here, they are called white nationalists and racists. If they went as far as to force non-English speaking businesses to confirm or close, it would be the injustice of the century for the next few news cycles. Can’t have it both ways.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            Lou_BC,

            “show their faces”

            Assuming they are requiring anti-covid muzzles in Quebec, it is now illegal to enter a public institution with your face covered or uncovered.

            Ironically, the ban on religious symbol wearing reminds me of the all-controlling mentality the catholic church has shown at times.

            But, then it often seems that the “liberators” turn right around and start acting a lot like the oppressors they’ve just liberated everyone from. In a way the US revolutionary war was this way. Throw off the oppressive British government and then create a government very close in form to the British gov. Pres = king, senate = house of lords, house = house of commons.

      • 0 avatar
        statikboy

        The easy workaround would be to refuse to INSURE any 2035 or newer vehicles in Quebec regardless of where they were purchased.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I think it is very ill-advised for these governments to be signaling to manufacturers that they should be dropping any future development of hybrid technology.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      ajla,

      “dropping any future development of hybrid technology.”

      You are so right. I hadn’t thought of that, but that is a side effect of this EV bullying. It would be shame; there is a strong use case for hybrids for a lot of people.

    • 0 avatar
      Broo

      I live in Qc. From what I understand, hybrid will still be allowed, only vehicles which are 100% gas powered will be banned from selling new.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’ll never happen. Not in France, Paris, London, wherever. Especially not California.

    Stop listening to politicians blathering.

    • 0 avatar
      Greg Hamilton

      DenverMike,
      It will happen. You will see. In the words of Mortimer and Randolph Duke from “Trading Places,” I will bet you the usual amount.

      • 0 avatar
        gass-man

        Greg, why do you hate poor people?

        Trolling a bit, but not much. Those cities and areas are filled with poor and almost-poor people. They can’t afford Teslas or even Chevy’s. They also have to get to work and public transport will never get them all where they need to go. They also vote. When the politicos try to enforce these feel-good-do-nothing rules, they will be voted out. You will lose your bet.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Funny how liberals demand tolerance of everyone but themselves. ICEs and the English language are not the devil.

    • 0 avatar

      I do not know about ICE but English language is a Devil in France.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        ILO,

        I took French in high school, so I can tell you French is a devil to american school kids. The spelling and grammar are just about as ridiculous as english.

        • 0 avatar

          Because English was influenced by French.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            It was that Billy the Conqueror what done that. But English is a polyglot language, originally celtic, influenced by Latin, French, Danish/Norwegian, and Germanic dialects, but words from many other languages stick like gum to the bottom of a shoe.

            That’s the reason there are a couple dozen words for ‘nonsense’ in English. Many came from the UK: rubbish, tommyrot, balderdash. But America has added a few too: hogwash, bull—-, malarkey, baloney.

            Eventually, every one of them will be hurled at politicians on both sides of the border, and they’ll be lucky if that’s ALL that’s hurled at them. Haven’t you wondered why God made easy-to-toss eggs and tomatoes go bad so quickly?

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Liberals? Legault is slightly right of centre.

      Also, no one has ever accused Quebec of being a bastion of tolerance.

    • 0 avatar
      aja8888

      They usually change their tune when the increased costs hit them personally.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @SCE to AUX – You obviously don’t know much about Canadian politics or English versus French language history. It doesn’t slice as easily as American politics.

      It was a centre/right party that passed Quebec’s Secularist Bill 21. “Liberals” are against this bill. The English language in Canada is arguably the dominant language. Quebec politicians believe that they are protecting their heritage. The rest of Canada does not push bilingualism therefore Quebec argues why should they!

      It is also the same centre/right party that is pushing this “Ice Ban” so that also shoots down your theories.

      ICEs and the English language and liberals are not the devil.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Banning ICE vehicles as a means of center-right provincialism would be a first for me, I’ll admit, because everybody else who tries this is left of center.

        I find the language thing interesting, since the US does not have a national official language. Calls for it to be English are met with charges of racism and xenophobia. My Spanish is rusty, but I suppose I could brush up…

  • avatar
    Garak

    You know how it’ll be. Deadlines are set, but then they get pushed to the future again and again. The law’ll come in effect only if/when the electric car already has huge market dominance.

  • avatar
    mcs

    I think the market will decide in favor of EVs by then anyway. No need for a new ICE ban. In 2012, A Model S with 265 miles range cost $105,400. Now for $69,420, you can get a Model S with 402 miles range.

    In 2012, a Nissan Leaf SL cost $35,200 and gave you 80 miles of range ith 0-60 in 10 seconds. In 2020, for $38k you can get a Model 3 with 263 miles range and a 0-60 time of 5.3 seconds. A BMW 3 Series with a less refined 4 cylinder for $42k takes .1 seconds longer.

    2035 is 15 years away. By then ICEs will probably be 500cc to 1000cc. They’ll be expensive because China and Europe will have banned them. Technology to get 300 to 500 hp out of them will make them unreliable. If major adoption of EVs happens by then, gas stations will be getting scarce and it will be ICE owners that will be experiencing range anxiety. Especially on the coasts. Even worse, you’ll never know if the gas station that was selling gas last week will be around next week. Fueling will probably be at home by small tankers that will deliver it similar to home heating oil today.

    EV and ICE ownership experiences will be different in 2035. I don’t think a ban is needed to get rid of ICEs. No one will want one by then.

    • 0 avatar
      Tele Vision

      I think that you’re out of your mind. You do realize that keeping an older car running is better for the environment than building an electric car, yes?

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I’ll bookmark this post and see you in 15 years. EVs are going to become more abundant during that timeline but I think you’re way overstating the situation.

      Currently, Tesla builds good BEVs but everyone else kind of doesn’t. Many popular manufacturers don’t even have any BEVs for sale nationwide right now. You’re expecting that these other manufacturers are going to get their acts very together in short order. It might happen, but I don’t know if I’d bet on it.

      As far as the future environment for ICE goes there are a lot of engines that are basically North American only and wouldn’t be impacted by regulations in China or Europe. The US may start to enact stricter rules but there are a lot of elections between now and then and it doesn’t take much to cause gridlock in our political system.

      With fuel stations, new vehicle sales in a year make up about 6% of the total fleet so you would need a heavy shift to BEV before 2035 for refueling stations to start getting scarce by then. And when is the nonTesla EV infrastructure going to become more visible?

      I’m guessing you’re also expecting for boats, RVs, motorcycles, ATVs, and short/long haul trucks to all be EV by then as well?

  • avatar
    redgolf

    Gas will be so cheap by then ( 2035 ) because of the onslaught of EV’s, hey, I’ve got an idea!

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Who knows for sure what will happen but there will be more EVs and the price will come down regardless of Government interference.There will still be a large number of ICE vehicles by 2035 but eventually they will fade away. Fifteen years is still far enough away in time. There will always be ICE vehicles with collectors and car enthusiasts preserving the classics.

  • avatar

    Great news! Now the same has to done in USA. As much as I don’t like Biden or Democrats in general I am sure it will be done.

    2035 is 15 years from now. By then fusion reactors will become mainstream and therefore there will be plenty of electricity and SpaceX will land Starship on Mars and many of current commentariat (Boomers) will pass away. So most people in 2035 will not even remember that ICE existed. In ancient times yes there were ICE, steam engines and horses.

    • 0 avatar
      2manycars

      Sorry to disappoint you kid, but quite a few of us are likely to still be around and perhaps even driving in 20-25 years, and lots of us are not going to put up with this crap. There is going to be a strong backlash against all of this sanctimonious “green” garbage. I will never own an electric car, guaranteed, and I’m not the only one with that attitude.

      Fusion reactors? That’s a laugh. They’ve been 10-15 years away from being practical for the last 60 years or more.

      You must be very young and stupid.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      ILO,

      I just can’t believe it took me this long to see the parallel. This anti ICE witch hunt is following the same basic method as the anti tobacco witch hunt of several years ago. The purpose in both cases is to get people used to complying with government diktats.

      How could anyone argue with the persecution of smokers? Didn’t they know that we were bullying them because we care about their health? And our health (they proved at the time that one whiff of second hand smoke was more deadly than smoking a carton of cigarettes a day for thirty years)? How could anyone dare to argue against tyrannical behavior that is backed by such good intentions?

      So, now their doing it with ICE. And, who would dare to suggest that the environment on the only earth we have isn’t of paramount importance? Wouldn’t you just have be a terrible person to not care about the future of all the children? Then you better goddamn well do what we tell you to do.

      The point isn’t whether ICE is good or bad. The point is that this is being used for political advantage. (Not that that would surprise you…)

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Old_WRX –

        Smoking has dropped in half in Canada over the past 50 odd years. That has also reduced many smoking related deaths. HPV is now a greater cause of oropharyngeal cancer than smoking. Reducing smoking tobacco wasn’t a witch hunt.

        “The point is that this is being used for political advantage.”
        Who in Canada is gaining a political advantage by this move?

        Quebec probably isn’t going to be able to afford these measures anyway. They have the 2nd largest population in Canada and barely the 2nd largest GDP but only British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario pay more into Confederation than take out. In other words, Quebec is a financial drain on Canada as a whole. They don’t have the clout to pull this off alone.

        • 0 avatar
          redgolf

          “Smoking has dropped in half in Canada over the past 50 odd years.”
          That’s all, 50%, you’re kidding, I would have thought that would be the percentage in Kentucky, a smokers paradise! Nowadays if you see a smoker your inclination is to keep your distance, might even give them a disgusting look, like we use to avoid being near a person wearing a mask, now we stay far away from someone not wearing! Me a previous smoker 50 years ago, a boomer hoping to make it to 100! ;-)

        • 0 avatar
          Old_WRX

          Lou_BC,

          You seem to have missed my point. Though it is possible I didn’t explain what I meant very well.

          But, in another sense you proved my point by falling immediately for the “for your own good” (FYOG) excuse used in both anti tobacco and anti ICE.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Old WRX – we didn’t ban smoking. A combination of education and banning advertising. That lead to bans in restaurants, night clubs and public properties. The rest people did on their own.
            I don’t see a total ban on personal use ICE vehicles as a good idea. Prohibition failed miserably in the USA.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Old_WRX

        If they cared of people, FDA would ban Monsanto. They only care about something else, obviously.

        • 0 avatar
          Old_WRX

          slavuta,

          “If they cared about people”,

          The government only does things FYOG. Whatever could be any other motivation?

          But, FYOG is such a good tool of manipulation/control. Pick on a defenseless demographic, get everyone to join in on the persecution, use emotion/hysteria by telling them that whatever behavior you’re attacking is hurting all of us; and, voila, an excellent means of increasing control and reinforcing herd mentality.

          Twenty or thirty years ago, americans would not have acted so sheep-like about being forced to wear masks (of dubious, to say the least, efficacy).

    • 0 avatar
      Flipper35

      My 18 year old daughter was talking to one of her co-workers about the Cobra. He said it would be cool to convert it to electric. She tried to explain how it wouldn’t be the same car anymore. The weight of the batteries and where to place them, the sound, the balance would change, the way the torque continues to build. Shorter range, long recharge times and would be hard to take on track day because of the range/recharge issues.

      Don’t think the young kids don’t know what ICE engines are like.

      Another thing for the young ones if you want them to adopt BEV, put them in the Forza type games.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Eventually vehicles will change but much of the change will be due more to advances in technology and lower costs than Government. I am not going to worry about it either way. As for driving the same vehicle for over 20 years I have already done that and I will probably do it again especially since I am not driving as much and if the vehicle still runs good and is reliable then I will happily drive it 20 years and pocket the savings. If in the future an EV becomes more affordable and fits my needs then I might buy one but not because they are green and cool but because I like it and it fits my needs.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    • New vehicles only.
    • Commercial/industrial vehicles are exempt.

    • Population of Quebec is ~8.5 million (think state of Virginia).
    • New vehicle registrations are fewer than 500K/year (and declining).

    • To date, the traditional OEM’s have generally dragged their feet on EV’s.
    • To date, many of the new players haven’t yet offered vehicles for sale.

    Things change, sometimes quickly (and sometimes there are catalysts). [VW for one is going to be quite serious about its new EV’s. 15 years is multiple vehicle cycles even for VW.]

    This site likes to cite the relatively low take rate of EV’s nationwide. But The Truth About Electric Vehicles is that EV sales are concentrated in relatively few states (and in relatively few major cities within those states). EV’s have a fairly high take rate in some places *right now* – and this is early stages of the game (example chart, bearing in mind that the by-city ‘market share’ figures are significantly higher):
    https://tinyurl.com/y3wtvr8m

    The first chart in this article is perhaps instructive (keeping in mind that the purchase cycle for vehicles is much longer than for smartphones):
    https://tinyurl.com/yxb9q98p

    [A slow-moving glacier may look like it is standing still, but there are big changes going on underneath.]

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @ToolGuy – well said.

      British Columbia has the highest per-capita sales of electric vehicles in North America at 9% of total sales. Quebec is at seven per cent of all vehicle sales, and California at eight per cent.

      Southern BC and Vancouver Island has a milder climate and is more densely populated which favours EV’s.

  • avatar
    mikey

    I was born and raised in south central Ontario, 3 -4 hours from the Quebec border . Quebec is a great place, with some great people . I’ve had some good times , and some not “so good” times in La Belle Provence.

    At least twice they’ve voted ( by the slimmest of margins ) to not separate from Canada . I’m okay with that result ..I’d have been okay if the vote had gone the other way.

    Like most of my fellow Canucks , I don’t give a ……k what dumb a$$ law they pass !… I just won’t go near Quebec. If they want to ban ICE vehicles or separate ?….Do it .

  • avatar
    volvo

    Also a consideration is that the eventual outcome of such bans might be that if a BEV is too expensive or does not meet your needs then you are free to take the bus or train and, if at a distant destination, rent a BEV when you get there.

    Those pushing such mandated shifts in vehicle design probably would not be unhappy if a large segment of the population did not own private vehicles.

    It seems to me that if you were looking towards a workable, rather than utopian, solution to lower gasoline usage by vehicles you might mandate plug-in hybrids with say 50 mile all electric range. Currently Toyota achieves 42 mile all electric range with this design in the RAV4 prime.

  • avatar
    spookiness

    Political, nationalistic, and environmentalist pro or anti commentary aside, IIRC, isn’t Quebec’s hydroelectric power generation something in the 95% range? They export power throughout the northeast from what I recall. The greenhouse aspect is probably tiny, but other economic effects are probably the real news.

  • avatar
    Broo

    I live in Quebec. If everything goes as planned I’m buying my new vehicle next Spring since my step daughter will soon need her first car and I’ll give her my current 2005 which I bought new.

    The one I plan on buying will still be ICE equipped. Since I change my main vehicle every 12 to 15 years this will likely be my last one. The next one will probably be an EV since I’m gonna be close or slightly past the cutoff date. By then prices should have dropped and I’ll have more choices, hopefully.

  • avatar
    Mammoth

    Misleading title, and again that borderline racist Quebec bashing. How is this acceptable?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Click bait

    • 0 avatar
      fleeecy

      Quebec-bashing is a national sport in many parts of Canada. I read comments like those all the time online.

      The simple FACT that Quebec is 100% running on clean hydroelectricity, that it just makes sense for us to use that instead of importing petrol from afar (or to dig it out of the Alberta sand pits) seems to escape these people.

      Instead, the Quebec-bashers prefer to think of us as some sort of racist people that likes to live off of their ‘generosity’. Somehow, they think they’re paying for our EVs. People are weird like that sometimes.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @fleeecy – I thought bashing Ontario and Toronto IS the national sport. LOL

        • 0 avatar
          fleeecy

          @Lou_BC – I’m sure those Quebec-bashers are quite happy to be Toronto-bashers as well. How generous of them.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Share the love ;)

          • 0 avatar

            Thank you for saving this comments section. The rule goes that you can bash Toronto if you live in another major city or in the rest of Ontario. Ontario if you live in any other province, and Quebec if you live anywhere, including in Quebec.

            And you are completely and totally correct. I understand that how you feel about this environmentally could vary, but Quebec’s power grid allows it to actually *be paid* to take Ontario’s excess electricity (because Ontario completed borked it’s grid and sometimes needs to do this) since it can literally store hydro as water – like a big battery. EVs make tonnes of sense here, but the infrastructure will need 10-15 years to be fully established. As an example, I live in urban Montreal and have an ICE vehicle, mostly because I street park and don’t have a way to easily start a trip with a full charge. Once we solve that problem, we’re off to the races.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t plan on buying an EV in the near future but who knows if I am still driving and looking for a new car in 2035 or 2040 I might buy one if the price is competitive and the battery technology and infrastructure improves which it most likely will. If I bought an EV it would be less as a statement and more because I like it and it better meets my needs. A government mandate is not going to force me to buy something but competitive prices and improved technology and reliability would be a more important factor in my deciding to buy an EV.

    • 0 avatar
      fleeecy

      @Jeff S – Government mandates are not aimed at forcing you to buy something. It’s aimed at sending a clear message to carmakers so they work in the right direction.

      In this case, the right direction is to stop building ICE-only vehicles and to make PHEVs, BEVs and, maybe, Hydrogen-powered vehicles. The tech is there, it’s improving every day and very quickly. All we need now is to stop being dependent on petrol.

      Just make a PHEV version of every single ICE car out there. Can’t be that hard. Just look at the offerings in Europe. Also, make them build good BEVs and watch the prices drop as carmakers compete for our business.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @fleecy–True but the manufacturers are going to make the vehicles that sell. If few buy an EV then the manufacturer has little incentive to make them. I am not saying that EVs won’t sell but the manufacturer is going to make the types of vehicles that are selling well. For example if the Government wanted most us us to buy compact and subcompact cars but most of us buy full size pickups or suvs then the manufacturer has little incentive to make compact and subcompact cars. I would likely buy an EV in the future if the price drops and the battery technology improves along with improve infrastructure. I doubt I would ever buy a Tesla but an EV competitively priced that can be serviced at most places would be a vehicle I would consider. Also affordable and readily available replacement parts for any parts that might wear out.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Too many stars would have to line up. The politicians just want to get their stink out there, so they can claim they took a stab at saving the planet during their corrupt stint in office, while not giving a crap about what’s realistic.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • zerofoo: “and the lack of bullet trains and other public transportation alternatives is causing our freeways to...
  • sgeffe: As well as give you a static shock that could mess up your heart rhythm if you touched a metal piece of the...
  • ajla: How much furniture and appliances do you buy? I don’t think I’ve bought a big ticket item in the...
  • blppt: Lease deals can be had on S3, and they actually have stock of them. Golf R is a rare bird to find on the lot,...
  • pveezy: People in these comments sections always seem to be in the early 2000s mindset. For one, gas mileage is not...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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