By on April 27, 2022

Ford

The 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning has officially started production at the company’s Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Michigan and will apparently be getting some company at the Blue Oval City campus in Tennessee. On Tuesday, CEO Jim Farley said that the upcoming plant had been selected to produce a new model during a press event covering the official launch of the all-electric F-Series.

“It’s another truck,” he explained. “This is not our only truck. We said very clearly we want to be the leader in electric pickup trucks.”

Having manufactured a couple thousand already, Ford has stopped taking orders for the Lightning after citing high demand. It’s more or less what happened with the “Mustang” Mach-E. But the company is planning to sell 600,000 electric vehicles globally over the next two years and needs to expand its production capabilities for electric models. That’s where Blue Oval City comes into play.

Presumed to open in 2025, the facility will be jointly operated by Ford Motor Co. and South Korea’s SK Innovation. The site is said to include assembly lines, as well as a battery production plant and battery recycling center — resulting in an estimated 5,800 employees. Until Tuesday, the Lightning was the only vehicle Ford had confirmed for production.

Due to the focus of the event being on Ford’s expansion of the River Rouge Complex and all-electric F-150, Farley provided no details about the new truck that’s being planned for Blue Oval City. However, a spokesperson from the company was able to confirm that the EV will not be based on the F-Series. They also referenced it as a next-generation vehicle — presumably indicating it’ll be a redesigned version of an existing product. Considering that the Maverick is brand new and unlikely to be overhauled within the next three years, that really only leaves the mid-sized Ranger unless they misspoke and meant it would be totally novel.

But it’s hard to imagine yet another pickup joining Ford’s ranks, even with the CEO’s admission that Ford wants to be the leader in electric pickup trucks. With the F-Series already offered in a cornucopia of flavors, and the company providing smaller alternatives with the Maverick and Ranger, we would be surprised to see a wholly new product developed outside those sizing boundaries. It seems much more plausible for Ford to take an existing vehicle and set up its successive generation with the option to be fitted with battery packs and electric motors.

We’ve also previously heard from Ford’s European and Australian management heads that an electrified version of the Ranger (PHEV and/or BEV) was already in development. The speculative launch for that was rumored to be early 2025, which coincides with the completion of Blue Oval City. Europe is also approaching the launch of stringent Euro 7 regulations that will introduce an emissions-based road tax that will gradually increase penalties for combustion-driven vehicles. With the Ranger being Ford’s best-selling pickup for the region, it would be almost unimaginable that it would leave it as a combustion-only model.

Though concerns remain regarding the industry’s ability to produce EVs at a healthy pace. Despite there being lower demand for all-electric products in general, global supply chains have remained an issue. China, which represents over 60 percent of the world’s chemical processing and refining of critical battery minerals, has restricted trade and reduced output during its most recent round of COVID lockdowns. And there are concerns that future international conflicts could hamper already limited Western supplies. Demand for battery production is also at an all-time high, further driving up material costs during an inflationary period.

“The good news is there’s tremendous demand for our products but it is frustrating that we can’t build them in a timely fashion,” Executive Chairman Bill Ford told reporters. “Our team has done a great job of breaking bottlenecks but then new ones pop up and that’s just the world we’re in, unfortunately. We don’t want to lose those customers; we don’t want them to walk away and we’re doing everything we can to accommodate them.”

[Image: Ford Motor Co.]

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!

57 Comments on “Ford Lightning Getting Company in Tennessee...”


  • avatar
    FreedMike

    “But it’s hard to imagine yet another pickup joining Ford’s ranks…”

    Why? If not for trucks, Ford would be Game Over. And, honestly, that’s what the company’s known for. Given that, MOOOAAAARRRRRRRRRRR TRUCKSSS makes absolute sense.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    That’s a lot of words to say “it’s probably a Ranger, but nobody knows for sure”.

    “Despite there being lower demand for all-electric products in general”

    Q1-2022 US sales by brand:
    Toyota = 437006
    Ford = 410026
    Chevrolet = 342619
    Tesla = 310046

    Every other brand you can think of trailed Tesla.

    Demand is high, and despite choked supply lines somehow Tesla is increasing its presence. Ford will do well to produce more electric trucks and snuff out Tesla’s threat to its standing.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      We get it, you love EVs. But the fact remains that combustion vehicles currently outsell EVs (pure electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids) by a ratio of over ten to one.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        If trends don’t matter, then stop reporting on EVs.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Maybe when Tesla overtakes Chevy, people will notice.

          Off topic, but I read this NYT article not too long ago about how Tesla dealt with the chip shortage issue (paywall):

          https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/08/business/teslas-computer-chips-supply-chain.html

          “When Tesla couldn’t get the chips it had counted on, it took the ones that were available and rewrote the software that operated them to suit its needs. Larger auto companies couldn’t do that because they relied on outside suppliers for much of their software and computing expertise. In many cases, automakers also relied on these suppliers to deal with chip manufacturers. When the crisis hit, the automakers lacked bargaining clout.”

          Boom.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Boom.”

            Oh the ignorance.

            You think automakers want an abundance of chips. They don’t. They are making piles of money while shipping far fewer units.

            Meanwhile, Tesla is playing software games and substantially raising prices.

          • 0 avatar

            The biggest issue with doing what Tesla did with the chips wasn’t supplier driven. It was the fact the internal process and QC won’t allow you to make a quick change on a part like that. It would require vetting and testing over months before they would install it in the cars. Tesla runs on a tech model with much less rigorous testing and qualification. Right now GM isn’t shipping trucks with Spray in Bedliner because their first supplier can’t get them material and they need to complete QC on other suppliers before switching and that’s just for a rubber coating imagine what happens on an internal scale when you change a chip.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @mopar:
            I’m no expert on computer coding, but it seems to me that recoding a chip probably requires less “field testing” than a mechanical component. I don’t think the two cases here are that comparable.

          • 0 avatar

            @freedmike
            I think it depends honestly. I work in manufacturing and some of our customers would have issues and require re-qualifying a chip that was the same type but another manufacturer, others wouldn’t. My understanding here is it wasn’t just a different manf, Tesla actually used completely different types of chips and had to redesign the boards they mount into in order to use them. My experience here would be the major auto makers would require multiple departments to sign off on such a move and at least one would require that some testing and validation need to be done, cycle times for that kind of thing usually go at least 6 months.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I’d think as long as the chip’s “mechanics” were ok, the re-coding shouldn’t be that big a deal. But as I say, I’m no expert.

      • 0 avatar
        BEPLA

        So you run a coffee shop and decide to sell cookies. You make two dozen chocolate chip and two dozen Oatmeal w Raisin. You sell all your Chocolate Chip cookies in the first hour, and while you eventually sell the last Oatmeal w/ Raisin just before closing, a lot of people don’t buy cookies because you were out of Chocolate Chips.

        At the end of the day, you looks at the sales numbers – then you show them to Matt. Matt then decides the sales statistics mean there’s limited demand for Chocolate Chip.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “We get it, you love EVs. But the fact remains that combustion vehicles currently outsell EVs (pure electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids) by a ratio of over ten to one.”

        More of those pesky thing called facts. EVs are very much a vanity product that relies on lies and deception to sell (like the zero emissions lie). People are very slow to adopt for a variety of reasons, but the biggest is the fact that EVs aren’t very good when compared to even cheap ICE vehicles.

        Hopefully the next EV that Ford builds in Tennessee (and ruins yet another legendary name), wone be a cobbled together piece of garbage like the (non) lightning is.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        It isn’t just a sales trend either. EV technology itself isn’t static. While there is a lot of tech that can’t make it from the lab into mass production anytime soon, a lot of it is starting to move into production. Half of all Teslas were shipped with cobalt and nickel-free LFP batteries. Cobalt-free 4680 cells are ramping up now. CATLs Na-ion batteries that eliminate lithium are getting ready for mass production. Densities are improving on Na-ion and by the latter half of the decade, lithium-ion will probably be the “V-12” of the auto/battery world with lower cost, temperature-extreme-tolerant, and more durable Na-ion and LFP dominating mainstream vehicles and devices.

        Charging technology has the potential to improve vastly as well. It’s been proven that charging could be faster than liquid fueling. While it’s just a white paper now, it is a possibility and they’re working to make it happen. Who knows how long it will take.

        So, basically, the factors that limit EV sales are being addressed and we’re starting to see results in terms of mass production with some of the technologies. As technology improvements are made, EVs will gain market share at a faster and faster rate. Some of the big bumps will occur when EVs get to be cheaper than ICE. Another bump will occur when larger number of EVs start causing a scarcity of gas stations. Range anxiety is coming to ICE vehicles and the clock is ticking. It’ll happen first in major metropolitan areas, then spread. It’s coming and will accelerate the curve even further.

        You also can’t ignore the growth of e-scooter and e-bike transportation. I see lots of scooters in urban areas and e-bikes in urban and suburban areas. So, if you are going to use the term “vehicle,” then maybe ICEs are actually in the minority now? Some of these little scooters are now showing 60-mile ranges in actual road tests.

        https://electrek.co/2022/03/30/high-gas-prices-arent-just-pushing-more-e-bikes-now-electric-scooter-sales-are-soaring-heres-why/

        https://reports.valuates.com/market-reports/QYRE-Auto-1Z1154/global-electric-scooter-and-motorcycle

        • 0 avatar
          Syke

          Nice report. Interesting.

          What I’ve always noticed in the anti-EV crowd is their belief that today’s technology is it, and will never get beyond what is available right now. Ditto for electric generation.

          I wonder if these same people, back in 1914, would have shown how the lack of efficient gasoline distribution (do you really want to go to the drugstore?) proves that horses are a much better alternative.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            In 1914 horses might have been the better alternative. There were about 460 fueling stations in the country, few paved roads, and vehicles were relatively expensive compared to income.

            By all 1924 there were about 150000 fuel stations and the price of vehicles like the Model T had fallen by 60%.

            If something similar occurs with EV infrastructure and prices over the next decade then they’ll definitely take over the market.

          • 0 avatar
            Matt Posky

            What I’ve noticed about the pro-EV crowd is that they often blind to nuance and always on the defensive. Case in point, this article speculated on Ford’s next electric pickup and had little to do with take EV rates until the topic was brought up by a reader.

            EVs will get better. But today’s examples largely do not offer better value for money vs gasoline models. While they do have some specific advantages and can work for people with a certain kind of lifestyle, they do not yet work for most Americans. That can absolutely change as the technology continues to improve or fuel becomes even more outrageously expensive. We may yet be curtailed into driving the same austerity models the rest of the world has been forced into or have hyper luxurious EVs that shame their petroleum dependent ancestors.

            My problem is not that the industry wants to swap to all-electric powertrains. It’s that the push coincides with nonsense ESG scoring, silly amounts of regulation, weird levels of government subsidizing, faux environmentalism, lower standards for what makes an acceptable automobile, worker layoffs, and higher costs to consumers. And that’s all separate from the general industry trends that are becoming problems (e.g. data harvesting, companies trying to retain ownership of vehicles via connectivity, subpar driver assistance packages, paywalls for already installed equipment, etc) but seem to accelerated alongside electrification.

            If you want someone to go be honest with you about how they feel about what the industry is doing at the moment, I’m your man. But if you want someone to parrot the corporate narrative and blindly endorse tHe MeSsAgE, you’ll need another author.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ What I’ve always noticed in the anti-EV crowd is their belief that today’s technology is it, and will never get beyond what is available right now. ”

            Except, in reality, nobody believes that. What people are against is legislation pushing these awful vehicles. They are not ready for prime time. They’re not good enough. Battery technology is awful, recharge times are way too slow, range is way too short, and the price is outrageous. Nothing is in the horizon that looks to change any of that.

            Right now EVs are a niche product. We shouldn’t be pushing a niche product with legislation. The market should have decided. Hybrids and PHEVs show real promise and are a much better alternative while we build a charging network and enough power plants to support these earth damaging EVs. But we didn’t invest in those. We went straight to EVs because “gLoBaL wArMiNg”, despite EV production doing untold amounts of damage to the planet.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ While they do have some specific advantages”

            The only advantage ford could come up with to tout during the F150 Mach E reveal is the fact it goes 0-60 in 4 seconds.

            This is supposedly a truck. Trucks, generally, are built to tow, haul, work. How is 0-60 important? And how is that the only thing you are touting?

            How bad must the fake lightning be if all you can tout is 0-60?

            It, like all EVs, is nothing more than a vanity product.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            If it can embarrass a GT500, why not? Actually 0-69 says how it will merge, hang with traffic from a stop or pull ahead, even unloaded. Remember that stays constant with altitude, unlike ICE. So it’s a number really used for comparison.

    • 0 avatar

      That number for Tesla is global sales not US sales. US sales are guesstimated at around 100-130k units.
      Here are the numbers for the US I found from KBB Cox
      Toyota (with Lexus) 514,592
      GM 509,108
      Ford 429,174
      Stellantis 405,221
      Hyundai(Kia) 322,593
      Honda 266,418
      Nissan 227,481
      Subaru 132,426
      Tesla 129,743

      I mean don’t get me wrong that damn impressive given the age of the company. I mean really but they are no where close to the 3rd largest manufacturer of cars in the US. Also Tesla sales are heavily concentrated in CA, TX, and FL.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “That number for Tesla is global sales not US sales. US sales are guesstimated at around 100-130k units.”

        Yes SEC loves to twist the numbers to make Tesla look better. 300K vehicles sold globally is not impressive at all. There is no massive shift to EVs as proven by Tesla’s numbers.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Why wouldn’t it be a Super Duty? An EV Super Duty wouldn’t work for hotshotters or people towing travel trailers around, but a lot of Super Duties are day-use fleet trucks, and those owners would love an EV.

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      EV range falls off a cliff when hauling a lot of extra weight. I would be shocked if the extended-range Lightning could do 150 miles pulling anywhere near its maximum tow rating. With that in mind, an HD EV seems out of the question without some major technological improvements coming into play. Ford executives have also been fairly open about the Ranger getting electrified in the past, which I already mentioned in the article.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        You all are thinking of the HD market only in terms of the long-distance haulers. That’s not what’s going to get electrified in the short term. There are F-350s and F-550s with utility beds or ladder racks working all over every city, in both corporate and government service. Those would do GREAT as EVs, and Ford Pro should be seeing how quickly it can get an electric powertrain into a platform of that capability.

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          “You all are thinking of the HD market only in terms of the long-distance haulers. That’s not what’s going to get electrified in the short term.”

          I recently used my truck for a ~1.5 month project that paid me more than I paid for my truck (I didn’t pay a lot for my truck). Of course some of those days were 3 hours long (a few were closer to 7, if you think I’m a slacker), and it’s almost 3 miles from my home.

          Could’ve used an integrated air compressor on the truck for a few of those days. Maybe onboard charging of cordless tools. And on at least one day I could’ve used 125V 15A (or 20) onboard power.

          Didn’t haul anything very heavy, but big and ungainly and dirty, yes. (Is low liftover height important to me? Yes, it is, thank you for asking.)

          I spent way more on gasoline for the truck than I wanted to.

          But since I don’t know anything about trucks or tools or electricity or money or the automotive industry or electric vehicles or anything important I’ll shut up now.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I think electric trucks have a ways to go before they truly meet the needs of the heavy hauler/tower buyers.

      But I also don’t think most truck buyers are doing that kind of “serious” work with them – typically, the heaviest duty I see trucks doing is commuting, or hauling a 70″ TV home from Best Buy. For buyers like that, the current state of the EV art is going to work just fine.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I think the big move in the HD truck space
      over the next decade will be hybridization of existing gasoline engines that can allow manufacturers to drop diesels.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      The Silverado EV is based off an EV-dedicated platform meanwhile the Lightning is built on a modified version of the existing F-150’s chassis. Therefore the Silverado EV is supposedly less compromised and has an impressive 400-mile range. GM vaguely mentioned a cheaper.
      https://insideevs.com/reviews/559127/silverado-ev-vs-f150-lightning/

    • 0 avatar

      I’m guessing there isn’t the demand. 3/4 and 1 ton pickups in small fleets are everywhere, but those guys running 2-10 trucks don’t seem to be showing a lot of interest in EV’s (thinking contractors landscapers etc). I don’t see many in large fleets, one exception may be towing companies, but those trucks run at odd intervals (may never leave town one day then get called on a 100 mile tow the next) so they may be hesitant. The other exception is a lot of government fleet, I have a feeling they are looking at buses and small vehicles first and trucks later. After watching a bunch of state and town government auctions the pickups tend to get run for many years as the don’t accumulate a ton of miles.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        You’re missing the telcos. Almost everything the likes of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast run around here is a utility bed on a heavy-duty truck chassis. Those would be a near-perfect application for a 200-mile electric powertrain.

        The contractors that work for utilities also have similar equipment.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Hopefully the Ford electric trucks and (eventual) EV RealMustang are popular enough that the Mach-E gets crowded out and sent back to hell.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Don’t mince words about the Mach E…tell us how you really feel…

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      By the way, it’s Mustang Mach-E, not “Mustang” Mach-E. Why? Because Ford builds the Mustang, owns the rights to the name, and can put it on whatever they care to. Including a bicycle, should they wish.

      Ford, not the individual vehicle owners, nor journalists, gets to decide what is a Mustang.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “Ford, not the individual vehicle owners, nor journalists, gets to decide what is a Mustang.”

        That is 100%, fully correct. Ford can name their vehicles whatever they want. However, unless the TTAC moderators say otherwise I don’t have to refer to it by its complete name in my comments on this website.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “Ford, not the individual vehicle owners, nor journalists, gets to decide what is a Mustang.”

        I disagree. If we define the Mustang as a product then yes its perfectly logical to assume the purveyor of said product can do as they please. But some products pass from ordinary disposable things into public consciousness and become part of national culture. Once such a thing occurs it ceases to be so simple.

        I’ll add one more point, when Porsche created the Panamera and Macan they didn’t attempt to graft the name of their best known models onto them. By attempting to tie in the iconic Mustang to a product nowhere near being one, Ford is really showing either how little confidence they had in it or how insecure they are as a company. The games they play with their inventory only further highlight my point; Dearborn: Oh that’s right we sold out for MY23 [because we have already agreed to export 50%+ of production *again* as we did last year]. If F150 EV takes off its going to be Mach what?

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ By the way, it’s Mustang Mach-E, not “Mustang” Mach-E. Why? Because Ford builds the Mustang, owns the rights to the name, and can put it on whatever they care to. Including a bicycle, should they wish.”

        No. You are wrong. The Escape based Mach E is not a Mustang. It’s a fat imposter that is so bad, Ford had to call it a Mustang to get people talking about it.

  • avatar
    kcflyer

    Obviously their second EV truck will be called Thunder. Your welcome.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Probably the Transit. It’s basically the (Ford) Euro pickup, and the Lightning’s EV hardware is of the right scale. Plus AWD? Euro chicken tax exempt?

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Off topic, but am I the only one who would seriously consider a Maverick with the SVT treatment?

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I like my coffee hot and my Mavericks base.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “Off topic, but am I the only one who would seriously consider a Maverick with the SVT treatment?”

      SVT is dead (yet another legendary nameplate Ford has ruined). So you can have a Maverick ST (Sanitary Towel?).

      But the question is, will it be something unique and performance oriented or something like the Sport Trac Adrenalin (which was a huge joke).

      A Maverick with a rear biased AWD and the 2.3L out of the Mustang would be sweet.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Cheap trucks should be cheap and economical. I think the hybrid is the most compelling version and the farther away they get from it the worse the truck will get. I just wish they’d add a small rear motor, the way Toyota did to the Prius AWD, for PNW mud season.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        ” I think the hybrid is the most compelling version…”

        You would think the absolute worst and least capable version of a TRUCK would be the best.

        “and the farther away they get from it the worse the truck will get.”

        Absolutely not. The best version of the Escape pickup, right now, is the 2.0L, AWD model. It is the most capable and most rounded model. Further increasing that capability will make it even better.

        Now, Ford is fully capable of making the Escape pickup with the best of both worlds…capability and fuel economy, but thy choose not to. An AWD hybrid with a tow rating of 4000-4,500 pounds would effectively kill the Ranger.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Good grief. You don’t buy this pickup if you want to carry anything heavier than a few landscaping supplies from Home Depot. Cheap and economical is more important than the d!ck measuring contest.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            If that is all you are carrying, then you don’t need a truck.

            If you need cheap and economical transportation, then you shouldn’t be looking at a truck.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Electric PU’s make a lot of sense for for the commercial/fleet market but I chuckle at the picture of the Lightening pulling an Airstream cross country. An EV PU will outshine an ICE powered PU in multiple scenarios but not that one. In fact that’s where it shortcomings will really show. Ever pull an RV like that behind a PU? It’s like dragging a billboard down the highway. A Lightening pulling a load like that probably won’t go much further than a 150 miles before it is ready for a recharge. Good luck with that in a rural area.

    Can’t get enough of the electric drive in the Volt(dead quiet, smooth effortless torque/power) but for my trucks/tow vehicles I’ll stick w/gas. Battery tech has a LONG way to go before I’d consider anything electric.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      I seriously considered going all-electric with our fleet while considering how to replace our old Sedona minivan. The Ioniq 5 was a candidate at the top of my price range, for instance, although I still haven’t even seen one.

      But I couldn’t justify the mix of price, 50% range reduction, and actual towing capacity available today in the EV market, not to mention the inventory shortage issues. So we ended up with a Santa Fe Limited, which combines semi-decent fuel economy and sufficient 3500-lb towing capacity in a nice package.

      Maybe next time.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    How about an EV Maverick. Maverick is small enough and lighter that it would be a good inexpensive pickup for fleets and for those who want an inexpensive all purpose commuter vehicle that can be used for runs to Home Depot. Price it between 25k and 30k and lower the range to keep it affordable. Not all EVs need to be large there is a demand for a smaller less expensive EV that is more practical. Not everyone can afford a Cybertruck or even a Lightning nor do they need those.

    • 0 avatar
      haze3

      Yes, please.

      Add the Pro Power work-site/home charging option and you have something that will satisfy a lot of use cases.

      An EV Ranger would be interesting but would expect that it would be an entirely new truck, not an EV add on current frame. They certainly need a path to a non-commercial EV PU that is in the $50K range or lower. Cannot win the private consumer market starting $10-15K above the Tesla Model Y.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        An EV Maverick would be more affordable and get more widespread acceptance of EVs by the consumer. My hybrid Maverick has electrical box in the bed with wires that can be used to connect various electrical devices that could run off the engine’s power so it would not be a stretch to have it run off an EVs battery if a Maverick EV were offered. Getting more affordable EVs in the hands of more consumers would be beneficial for more widespread adoption of EVs. This would boost Ford’s EV credentials.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Maverick 2.0 recipe: take Mach-E remove SUV part, add bed – done.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • nrd515: Drive something with the ZF 8 speed. That’s a transmission done right. I don’t see how it could...
  • SPPPP: :) Nice.
  • Steve S.: Those ribbed bumpers are highly sought after by customizers, and could probably sell for a couple hundred...
  • detlump: Please change out that plastic fuel filter ASAP! They are fire hazards. Replace with a steel filter....
  • Frobig: The newest vehicle I owned that had crank windows and no AC was a ’93 Toyota pickup. I don’t...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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