By on January 14, 2022

A modern and efficient V8 of 4.1 liters, the HT4100 was the exciting way forward for Cadillac’s propulsion needs in the early Eighties. The engine came hot on the tail of a very iffy cylinder deactivation experiment, V8-6-4. Unfortunately, just like the cylinder games before and the Northstar after, the HT was plagued with issues that took years to iron out. The HT in its name meant High Technology but could’ve meant Halfway There. Let’s travel back to the Seventies and talk cylinders.

The time leading up to the release of the HT power plant was a difficult one for domestic car manufacturers. Their lineups were filled with enormous and inefficient vehicles made with bargain-basement parts. They were loosely assembled by workers that may have been drunk dependent on the day of the week. American consumers were getting wise via the arrival of efficient and better-made Japanese cars, and the government was stirring the pot with fuel regulation.

Said regulation was a result of the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, a crisis that prodded Gerald Ford’s administration to take action to improve the market-wide fuel economy of cars sold in the United States. Cadillac would need a new V8 fairly soon, but the HT was still just an idea. GM compromised, and decided Cadillac’s V8 would receive cylinder deactivation.

The idea of cylinder deactivation was not a new one and was tested on multi-cylinder engines for the first time in World War II. Cadillac sought to modernize the technology, which it marketed as V8-6-4. GM’s engineers worked with Eaton Corporation’s vehicle division to develop the electronically controlled deactivation system. What they created was a first-ever, but is now found on every car: An engine control unit, or ECU.

Said ECU determined the power demand of any given moment by running the program GM called Modulated Displacement. The system promised to switch the engine to eight, six, or four cylinders appropriately and automatically. Three running modes were workable because the ECU turned off opposite pairs of cylinders. It was “like three engines in one,” per advertisements. Part of the elaborate ECU included an on-board diagnostic program that would show engine trouble codes on the HVAC display. Very advanced for the time, the diagnostic system stored all error codes and meant mechanics didn’t need to use a separate scanning tool. Also displayed was a digital number within the new MPG Sentinel. The Sentinel showed the number of cylinders currently operating, average or instant fuel economy, and an estimate of the car’s range to empty.

Able to run on as few as four cylinders, the tech promised to save much fuel for Cadillac customers. Cadillac couldn’t really just use smaller engines at the time, as that was not acceptable to the American luxury car buyer. The feature was made standard on 1981 Cadillacs and was exclusive to the brand. Seville was excepted from having the feature as standard, as it used a diesel V8 as its base engine. That engine was a mess too, but the diesel base model Seville was the first American car sold as standard with a diesel engine.

V8-6-4 was added to Cadillac’s L62 V8. That engine was new in 1980 (as L61) and featured the ever-desirable throttle-body fuel injection. With 6.0 liters of displacement, the 368 cubic inch engine was a de-bored version of the 472 V8 of 1968 and was designed specifically to comply with CAFE fuel economy requirements. In its transition from L61 to L62, power dropped from 145 horses and 270 lb-ft of torque to 140 horses and 265 lb-ft of torque.

The new V8-6-4 was instantly praised as a landmark of technology, but the praise didn’t last long. Almost immediately, Cadillac owners began to complain their new cars weren’t running properly. The engine’s issues were considerable, and the main culprit was the all-new ECU. Limited in its processing speed, programming, and overall computing power, the ECU could not efficiently manage the tall order asked of it by Modulated Displacement. There were just too many variables; the ECU could never keep up.

Additionally, the L62 required a different type of EGR valve than the normal ported variety. Engineers chose a positive backpressure type EGR (no electronic EGRs in these times). While this setup would have worked in a normal engine, with the V8-6-4 it caused engine ping. On four cylinders the engine produced less exhaust than normal and had less pressure to operate the EGR. General Motors needed to act, so it took the engine to PROM.

PROM in this instance meant programmable read-only memory. GM released PROM updates to the chips for the engine control module, 13 of them in total. But customers didn’t feel too interested in continually returning to the dealer for PROM updates or indeed saving some money on fuel. As a result, many times the service department just turned off the system. It was easy enough to turn off the Modulated Displacement feature and required pulling one wire from the transmission. Once complete, the L62 returned to eight-cylinder business as usual. It’s incredibly rare to find a Cadillac in The Current Year with a functioning cylinder deactivation system.

GM was very sure it didn’t want to offer the V8-6-4 again the following model year, so it was dropped for 1982. GM went further and removed the 368 engine (standard L61 and L62) from almost all Cadillacs. Holdout for the cylinder deactivation was a singular model (oddly), the Fleetwood limousine through 1984. The L61 368 remained in use with a carburetor in the Cadillac commercial chassis for hearses and things, also through 1984.

The 368 died in infamy but was the last big block cast-iron pushrod V8 offered in a production car. Its big-block brethren had died out much earlier and were finished by 1978. Something else died alongside the 368, use of the legendary THM400 in factory GM cars. The heavy-duty three-speed was last used with the remaining 368 cars of 1984.

As a result of the V8-6-4 mess, Cadillac was forced to take decisive action on a replacement. Initially, the HT engine was slated for a 1983 model year introduction, on new front-drive Cadillac offerings. But the company’s current lineup of cars couldn’t wait that long, so HT was rushed through development, pushed into production, and debuted in 1982 on Cadillac’s rear-drive models. And it went so well! More on that in Part II.

[Images: GM]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

71 Comments on “Abandoned History: General Motors’ High Technology Engine, and Other CAFE Foibles (Part I)...”


  • avatar
    sgeffe

    Will read the post, but I’m glad to see that stupid Tundra ad has been banished! (Or AdBlock Plus can omit it!) Looking forward to this series!

    This is your one and only chance, VerticalScope! Next time, I’m outta here permanently!

  • avatar
    jmo

    “”General Motors is not in the business of making cars. It is in the business of making money.”” Thomas Murphy CEO GM

    That’s the heart of the issue – the product, in his mind, was incidental to the business. They also had a huge number of challenges that were engineering related and they didn’t have someone at the top with the background needed to resolve those issues.

  • avatar
    ehaase

    I wonder why GM didn’t just develop 5.0L V8 off old Cadillac block or just use Oldsmobile 307 instead of developing V8-6-4 or rushing HT4100 into production.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      I assume part of the issue is the 1979 Iranian Oil Crisis. There was tremendous pressure to reduce fuel consumption both because the price of oil had doubled but also because there were gas lines again. For Cadillac buyers who weren’t concerned about fuel prices they were very concerned about availability. If the 1979 oil shock hadn’t hit its possible or even likely GM would have stretched the development timeline.

      • 0 avatar
        ehaase

        Since the other divisions used 5.0L V8’s, I would think a 5.0L in the Cadillacs would have been fine.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        The Iranian Hostage Crisis did create an oil crisis similar to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. That and the Department of Energy and EPA put pressure on the auto industry to provide vehicles with better mpgs and less emissions. GM rushed the 4 6 V8 and the automotive diesel to market and GM also took cost cutting measures. GM should have stretched the timeline for both but felt the pressure to comply. Late 70s thru early 80s was not a good time for Detroit with Government regulations giving them a steep hill to climb. Also Detroit makers cost was not competitive with the Japanese which at the time had the lower cost to manufacturer. Not entirely excusing GM but not everything was GMs fault and the same was true for Ford, Chrysler, and AMC.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      My poor uncle owned one of these. Sadly it replaced I believe a Buick with the olds diesel. He stuck it out though and drove big Fleetwoods until he passed.

      • 0 avatar
        TimK

        My brother had the misfortune of buying a station wagon with the Olds diesel. GM really “sweated the detail” on that frakenmotor and when it blew up out of warranty, my brother had to dump the car because the cost of repairs was far more than it was worth.

    • 0 avatar
      islander800

      Speaking of the Olds 307, what ever happened to the sweet little Olds 260 cu.in. V8 of the mid-70s? I ordered one in a new 1976 Olds Omega Hatchback (looked like a coupe with hatch lid including the rear window) with bucket seats and the 5-speed manual. The engine was smooth and quiet but the manual had its design issues – like, the side-to-side gates were awfully close, so first to fourth shifts were common and there was no reverse lockout so it was not uncommon to “grind a pound” when downshifting. Other than that, it was wonderful cruising at highway speeds in overdrive 5th, turning under 2K rpm and getting about 30 mpg in the then-under-appreciated Nova/Camaro-derived platform. I’ll bet that particular combo of Omega hatchback/260 V8/Getrag aluminum-case 5-speed is a rare one to find today.

      • 0 avatar
        TCowner

        My first car was a 78 Olds Cutlass with the 260 V-8, we called it the Nutless Cutlass. Thing was super smooth but I believe it only had 105 hp. If you put it in passing gear on the highway, it made more noise when it kicked down but that was about it, it was so slow.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Yep! My first car was a ‘78 Cutlass Salon with the 260 and presumably the THM-200 as a dance partner. Sucked gas like a 455 while barely producing more forward thrust than the 231 Buick 6 in the Cutlass and Regal sedans in which I learned to drive prior to inheriting the Salon.

    • 0 avatar
      Mike Beranek

      That old Cadillac block, originally developed just after WWII, had been enlarged to 500 cubes by the late 70’s. But it’s 1960’s refresh gave it a capacity to be bored out to (gasp) 600 cubic inches! That almost 10 freakin’ liters!
      The 368 cube 4-6-8 must’ve weighed an awful lot with only about half of it’s capacity bored out. A 5-liter version would’ve weighed even more.
      As for the Olds 307, it eventually did make it into the Brougham, which was too heavy for the HT’s tourque.

      • 0 avatar
        texan01

        the 368/425/472/500 block is totally unrelated to the postwar Cadillac design. That was an all new design in 1968.

        A 500 is lighter than a Chevy 454, and a 368 is only 100 pounds more than a Chevy 350.

        Also just FYI, the bore size doesn’t really change the amount an engine weighs, a Chevy 262 weighs about the same as a Chevy 400.

        I had a friend build a 76 Cad 500 for his 78 Impala, we did lots of research before doing it.

        The 368 was down enough power that a Chevy 305 could nearly match it’s output.

    • 0 avatar
      eng_alvarado90

      If I recall correctly, up to the late 70s Cadillac did not share any powertrains with “lesser” GM divisions. Upper management may have thought it would dilute the brand.
      But anyway they ended up phasing out the Cadillac exclusive powertrains and using 5.0 and 5.7 engines from the mid 80s. And the brand’s reputation was diluted anyway…

  • avatar
    Michael S6

    “The HT in its name meant High Technology but could’ve meant Halfway There”. Halfway there or half-baked pretty much sums up GM product development.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Meanwhile, the Japanese were (right around this time) starting to introduce a series of SOHC V6 engines that absolutely slayed the HT4100 in every metric from power to fuel economy to reliability. Product development in Detroit was so incredibly broken, and it took the existential fear that Detroit executives experienced when they looked at the 1982 Honda Accord or the 1984 Nissan Maxima to get them to take a step back, drop their hubris, and open themselves up to new ideas.

  • avatar
    aja8888

    I was smart enough at that time in 1980 to buy the diesel instead.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “Holdout for the cylinder deactivation was a singular model (oddly), the Fleetwood limousine through 1984. The L61 368 remained in use with a carburetor in the Cadillac commercial chassis for hearses and things, also through 1984.”

    The 4100 could not move the additional weight (and sometimes armor protection) of the limousine, so it required the 368. My guess as to why the fuel injection was kept probably had to do with model recertification or emissions whereas the commercial chassis may have been exempt at the time.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Cadillac of the period is a study in how reactive actions can be destructive. Although the GM downsize had started prior to 1979, Detroit as a whole was caught flat footed by the second oil crisis and coping with new CAFE regulations. I’ve read some executives were told to expect $3/gal in 1985 (so at least $9 in The Current Year) and thus they scrambled. GM’s going FWD plan had Cadillac developing an all new motor for MY85 but development was rushed after the 368 fiasco (also bc of CAFE IIRC). Looking back its quite comical:

    Ok bore out the 425 and lets add this fancy fuel injection for the technological 80s!

    Sh!t that didn’t work. Ok throw Diesel at it!

    Geez even worse, ok throw the 4100 at it!

    GM should have just paid the fine for the 368 and let dealers keep pulling the fuel injection as need be until 1985 (or lobbied the Reagan Admin for temp CAFE exemption bc ‘Murica). I know why they did Diesel, but Cadillac should have not been party to it even if it had succeeded (GM going diesel was all about fuel economy, not having cool turboz or monster torque).

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m just going to say that TBI is good.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      But multiport is better.

      • 0 avatar

        4.9 PORT FUEL INJECTION V8

        https://images.bonanzastatic.com/afu/images/8b15/91cd/2584_10806126300/__57.jpg

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Multi-port is the best.
        However, TBI was still a massive improvement over carburetors and it’s wonderful in its simplicity. Any dingbat can figure this out:
        static.summitracing.com/global/images/FAQs/5236/ThrottleBodyEFI.jpg

        Growing up I heard a lot of pejoratives about TBI (“toilet bowl injection”, etc.) so I avoided those engines. Now that I’ve dealt with some of them I have no idea what the negative feelings are about.

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    A 7.7 L motor with 145 hp? How far automotive engineering has progressed!
    And what a bemusing choice for General Motors’ flagship model: a self destructing diesel motor standard, and this pitiful V8/6/4 thing??? I don’t know when the TTAC GM death watch dates back to, but I’d put right at 1980 with this and the X-cars. But then again maybe 1970 with the Vega was the start of GM’s decline.

    This should be a fun series and wow, there are some huge depths to plumb. This is going to be fun

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    V8-6-4 seemed like genius at the time. Despite its troubles, it was better than the 350 Diesel.

  • avatar
    MitchConner

    Dad bought a 1972 Sedan de Ville for Mom when I was a kid. Had the 472. She’d get in it, stomp on the gas pedal a few times, crank the starter, stomp on the gas while still cranking the starter, back off the gas for a second as the engine would start to catch, then stomp away again.

    When the engine finally lit it blew out a gigantic cloud of crud that killed birds for miles and stunted the growth of kids down wind. Dad would tell her not to start the car that way. My brother did too. Even I did at my age in the single digits. She’d tell us to shut up and do it anyway. Flooded it so bad one winter Dad had to pull a few plugs and dry them out with a hair dryer in the garage when it was something like 8 degrees out. He was good about it until a big blue fireball boomed out the carb — whereupon he blew his stack, went into the house, and chewed her out for starting the car like a knucklehead all the time.

    Best of all, that big blue whale got a whopping FOUR mpg city and EIGHT mpg highway when he first got it. After adjusting the timing and air fuel mixture he doubled that. The acceleration perked up a bit, too. Don’t remember how big the gas tank was but it seemed huge.

    We’d go for road trips from Chicago to Pittsburgh in it. Back seat was so big my brother would sleep across it while I’d fill in the footwells around the driveshaft tunnels with pillows and sleep down there.

    Was pretty cool in its day but just a gigantic barge now. Hard to believe that was 50 years ago. Yikes.

    • 0 avatar

      Did your mom move on to fuel injection where the car started easily?

      • 0 avatar
        MitchConner

        @Corey: Yep. Once FI came around — Mom changed her starting procedure. It took a sales rep at the Cadillac store to change her mind, too. She went to start a new one and the rep said to just turn the key. Never did it again.

        • 0 avatar

          My Cadillac always started right up with its gold PassKey and fuel injection!

          • 0 avatar
            SoCalMikester

            dad paid $75 to a friend in the early 80s for a 63 chevy. being chicago suburbs, illinois, there wasnt much left of that car. it required the stick in the carb and 2 pedal driving.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            That Cutlass I bemoaned up-thread (as well as the parents’ Cutlass and Regal) always started with one pump to set the choke!

            The only drivability issue was a stumble when cold in the Regal (which had the Computer Command Control 2bbl carb).

            The FWD As had their issues with carbs — at least the CCC 2bbls on the Chevy 2.8s did, which turned my Oldsmobuick Dad into a Honda lifer, thanks to his 1986 Century! Maybe if he’d ordered one with the SPFI 3.8 like my 16 YOA self wanted, instead of buying a leftover off the lot…! (Even that 2.8 got multi-port the next year!)

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      That’s some pretty good colorful writing there. LOL!

      I can remember extended discussions on Consumers Magazine road tests at the time describing what it took to get a car successfully started, how it ran during warm up and how the car ran and responded after that. It seems every individual model had a different throttle pedal procedure for getting the motor to start. I can remember 70s cars that would simply stall for no decipherable reason, well except for simply total crap engineering.

      • 0 avatar

        I have but one memory of a car of that era being terrible, a mid 80s Caprice Classic my grandpa bought at auction. White with blue vinyl, it was an unmarked ex cop car. Had a timing and/or carb issue and dieseled. Would run after you turned it off and removed the key.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Engine run-on was very common back then. To combat this, a variety of hack fixes were attempted. We had an 81 K car that, when you turned it off, the “anti diesel” relay would engage the A/C clutch to stall the engine. FI rendered engine run-on to the history books.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Easy — just shut the ignition off with the car in gear!

          LOL!

          (Then remember to put the car into Park before you take your foot off the..why the hell is the car rolling..KRUUUUNNCH!

          Brake!)

      • 0 avatar
        DungBeetle62

        Everyone who dreams nostalgically about all the “character” the 70s malaise cars had never had to live through the terror of whether you were going to stall upon that first jump into traffic.

        Cars today may not have as much personality and the aero shapes “all look alike”, but you press that start button ONE TIME in the mornings and don’t need to touch it until you get to your destination and turn it off.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    For those of us that lived through 8-6-4, HT and diesel debacles, the absolute misery of GM unreliability was simply too much to overcome and forgive. Cars with 60k on the clock would need cylinder sleeves and head gaskets galore. It was awful.

    The 368 in its native form was a great motor. I had one in my 80 Deville and it was a joy to drive. The rest of the car however, just didn’t last. That was my last GM product. I had enough by then.

    • 0 avatar
      EAM3

      Weirdly enough, my dad bought a new Seville in 1980 with that gas guzzling wheezing 6.0 liter engine. That car was the textbook definition of a piece of crap. Something new broke just about every other week. It was very comfortable (when it ran) but you couldn’t trust it. In 1981 he bought an ElDorado Biarritz with the notorious 8-6-4 engine. This must have been a one-off because over the next 4 years it only went to the dealer for scheduled maintenance – the complete opposite of the Seville. Never had a single issue with the ElDorado.

  • avatar
    bubenator

    Two things to keep in mind regarding Cadillac V8 engines:

    First, while the peak power outputs look silly, Cadillac folks realized that those engines were very rarely going to be revved to 4K+ RPM. Why design an engine for big peak power at high engine speed if the engine is never going to be used that way? Instead, Cadillac V8’s are cammed to make giant gobs of torque low in the RPM band at the expense of higher values at higher engine speeds. Watching the 20-foot hood magically lift to the heavens when you mash the accelerator from a dead stop is pretty nifty.

    Second, Cadillac used its own block design that was completely separate from other GM brands. A Cadillac V8 is neither a “big block” nor a “small block” but integrated some interesting features from both. A Cadillac block is much more efficient in terms of mass and volume than a Chevrolet big block, which allowed Cadillacs to have lower hoodlines than some other contemporary GM full-size cars. The Cadillac 472, 500, 425, and 368 engines all used this block design.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Yeah people like to throw around big block and small block like there is some defined metric that makes it on or the other. It is however an engine that was designed to have a large displacement. While it was a very efficient design as far as volume and mass to displacement in its original displacement, shrinking it down to only 368 cu in pretty much negated that.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    My mother had a 472 in her 72 Sedan Deville. Great running engine that never used oil and was easy to work on. It had more than enough power but it always got 8 mpgs whether city or highway. I could chirp the tires.

  • avatar
    3SpeedAutomatic

    Part of the problem was each GM division was running in its own show. Such a practice was fine when everyone was using the same fuel in the same environment with long lead times, but CAFE and the EPA changed the playing field.
    Olds tired with the diesel, but rushed the project without understand the full implications. Eventually, it got the receipt right (ie: water separator), but the damage was done.
    Cadillac with the V8-6-4, but the chip wasn’t powerful enough plus other auxiliary issues. Another year of development and Cadillac would have earned the Dewar Trophy for a second time. Same failing approach with the HT 4100 which was half baked on introduction. Finally got it right with the HT4900. Problem was turn around times were only 4 to 5 years, not 8 to 20 which was the GM mind set.
    I appreciate what Roger Smith attempted to do (consolidate various GM divisions into subgroups), but bad habits (ie: not invented here) prevailed which ended in self destruction.
    The EV1 was a bright spot. If allowed to continue, Tesla wouldn’t be such a bright star as it is now. However, old time GM hubris killed it and Rick Wagoner steered the company into the abyss.
    Through all this mess, the only GM forte were automatic transmissions and ECM development which the Euro manufactures didn’t fully appreciate or lacked the scale to fully develop.
    Now GM wants to enter the brave new world of EV’s with the Cadillac Lyriq. I’m sure Ms Barra has read the “riot act” to every GM employee, but will be hard to sweep away all the skeletons in the closets. I wish them luck, but I’ll wait a few years before I consider a Lyriq or other GM EV in my future.

    • 0 avatar
      jhefner

      “Through all this mess, the only GM forte were automatic transmissions and ECM development which the Euro manufactures didn’t fully appreciate or lacked the scale to fully develop.”

      I believe another was air conditioning; there were some brands like Audi that went with Delco A/C rather than trying to develop it in-house. Few European buyers bought A/C, or used it to its fullest extent; so it made more sense to source out a Delco and be done with it.

  • avatar
    here4aSammich

    My dad was a service manager at a Cadillac-Olds dealer during this mess. Deactivating the mess was only way to make the cars run right.

  • avatar

    It took a “knack” to get things moving back in the day. I’ll never forget the joy of the first mustang turbo. Draw through carb, no intercooler, none of what we expect today. Stalling in NYC traffic in August when fuel pooled in the intake manifold was not a pleasure. I’m not surprised the first turbo you hear about is the SVT motor that ended up in XR4Ti.

  • avatar
    olddavid

    I love how everyone is an expert forty years later. Twitter is based on that very premise, correct? I saw a coupe Fleetwood Brougham in white over in the repo yard in early ’82. The buyer had raised hell and brought it back after tech deactivated the V864 function. I bought it for 40% of wholesale and my better half loved it for many miles. They had a spotty record, but just like an undeafeated football team, after their fifty year winning streak things were decidedly more somber at HQ for GM. Nobody wins forever, and they are guilty of shooting themselves in the foot. But do not forget what Sloan and Henry accomplished, either. There would be no Deming without their example for Japan, Inc. to build on.

  • avatar
    geo

    It’s a good thing they specified “Motor” car in the ad. I would have assumed it was a railcar or a horse buggy.

  • avatar
    chicklet

    I was 30 and came upon a used 5k coupe de ville in 1982, triple white and had to have it. I lived in NYC and drove it aggressively, amusing my friends by backing off the gas just a bit around 40 mph and you didn’t need the sentinel, everyone could feel the rumble of the 6 cylinder mode. When you got on the highway it went from 8 to 4 and could keep to 70 or more on 4 cylinders all day. I minded all the vacuum hoses, inspected all those relays regularly and generally had a good time. Nobody else had a Cadillac in my crowd, and thanks to a good 8 track and ice cold a/c, it was a hit.

    I certainly wasn’t their target customer and made the car use every bit of the programming in the passenger footwell computer. I actually enjoyed it and kept it for 6 years, till a burst power steering hose led to an engine fire. I moved on to the HT4100 and it was OK but we missed the cylinder drama haha!

    Maybe because I read all the instructions and had a lead foot, it worked the way the copywriters said. Tellingly, Dad didn’t like this car, so I figure perhaps I was the only one (LOL) who might have used the thing the way the engineers envisioned. Driving the 400 miles to Buffalo NY it could get 20 mpg on a good day.

    So there, one guy liked the engine, go figure!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Kruser: We had a Colt wagon it was… meh. But, perhaps it didn’t have a chance in comparison to the other...
  • Bike: You throw a lot of “facts” around old mate.
  • Bike: You throw a lot of “facts” around old mate.
  • dal20402: “Wages for most white collar jobs have been the same” This is emphatically not true in either...
  • slavuta: I feel he will not get to enjoy his new $$

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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