April's Fastest- and Slowest-Selling Pickups

2015-Chevrolet-Colorado-042 II

With robust sales since January, 2015 is showing signs of being one of the strongest auto industry sales years in almost two decades, and much of that success is due to pickup trucks and SUVs selling well. Six of the 10 fastest-selling pickup trucks in April were GM products, with GMC leading the way with its new Canyon and 2500/3500 heavy-duty Denali models. Manufacturers know they have a hit anytime a new vehicle sits on a dealer lot for an average of three weeks or less.

To qualify for our fastest-selling list, a pickup must meet a significant sales threshold so we can eliminate special packages or limited-edition trims. Our slowest sellers have no threshold. It's worth noting that popular models like the Toyota Tacoma, Chevrolet Colorado and Ford F-150 crew-cab configurations sold several thousand vehicles in April, and they're selling at a much faster pace than many popular cars.

It's also worth noting that the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab, typically a popular model, is the only half-ton on the slowest-selling list, taking an average of almost 2.5 months to record a sale. Alternatively, the average amount of time for a half-ton crew cab to sell in April was 46 days (which also happens to be the same amount of time it took a GMC Sierra 1500 Denali to sell).

 

Fastest-Selling Pickups

  1. 2015 Chevrolet Colorado crew cab, 12 days on sale
  2. 2015 Ford F-150 crew cab, 19
  3. 2015 Chevrolet Colorado extended cab, 22
  4. 2015 Toyota Tacoma extended cab, 22
  5. 2015 GMC Canyon crew cab, 23
  6. 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 Denali crew cab, 23
  7. 2015 Toyota Tacoma crew cab, 23
  8. 2015 Ford F-150 extended cab, 30
  9. 2015 GMC Canyon extended cab, 31
  10. 2015 GMC Sierra 3500 Denali crew cab, 34

 

Slowest-Selling Pickups

  1. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 extended cab, 101 days on sale
  2. 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 extended cab, 100
  3. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 regular cab, 75
  4. 2015 GMC Sierra 3500 regular cab, 73
  5. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab, 73
  6. 2015 Ram 3500 crew cab, 72
  7. 2015 GMC Sierra 3500 extended cab, 72
  8. 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 crew cab, 70
  9. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 extended cab, 69
  10. 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 crew cab, 69

 

Manufacturer's image

 

Comments

@Jeff S - Just because the costs have been incurred, doesn't mean they've been paid back. Or anywhere near, paid back. GM's decision to bring the twins back to America was likely a plan to help get those costs amortized faster. Of course it backfired, compounding losses.

But comparing the costs/payback/profits of the "world's most profitable vehicle" to one of the least profitable is nothing short of hairbrained.

@Denver Mike: " For every 9 out of 10 C/C twins that are sold, a more profitable GM vehicle sale is lost! And 16% are obscenely profitable Silverados and Sierras!!"

I'll give you the second part of that statement--barely. You've insisted before that the smaller trucks cost just as much as the bigger ones and that's one point with which I will disagree. However, I am fully aware of how much profit the manufacturers put on their full-sized trucks on average so even with $7K-$10K discounts they're still making more profits off their full sized trucks than almost any other model.

HOWEVER... that does not mean the other 64% coming from other GM vehicles are more profitable vehicles; rather, the exact opposite is far more likely true. Whether those sales are coming from SUVs, CUVs or sedans, those other vehicles typically have far less profit margin than any truck--INCLUDING the C-twins. Considering the C-twins have between 15%-20% less material in them by weight, the materials cost itself is cut by at least that much while their price averages only about 5%-8% below that of the full-sized models. This actually makes the mid-sized trucks no less profitable by margin than the full-sized models and only marginally less profitable in actual dollars since the full-sized trucks get so heavily discounted. Non-truck models typically only carry an 8%-13% profit margin on average which means that not only is their margin smaller, but the real dollar profit is smaller as well.

As such, the C-twins are making more money by cannibalizing GM's other vehicle sales even before any conquest from other brands.

@Road Whale -

"...those other vehicles typically have far less profit margin than any truck--INCLUDING the C-twins. Considering the C-twins..."

You keep lumping in midsize pickups in with Detroit fullsize pickups, as if they're all the same, profit-wise. Completely different animals. Yes they both have pickup beds, but that's where the similarities end, from a profitability aspect.


"... C-twins have between 15%-20% less material in them by weight, the materials cost itself is cut by at least that much while their price averages only about 5%-8% below that of the full-sized models..."

Raw materials are a tiny piece of the total pie. But profitability comes from volume of sales. With each sale, it becomes cheaper and cheaper. It has a cascading effect.

"...This actually makes the mid-sized trucks no less profitable by margin than the full-sized models..."

You're overlooking, oversimplifying too many things here. WAY TOO MANY!!!

Mini-trucks were wildly profitable when sales were through the roof. You keep forgetting it all comes down to volume sale. When volume went away, they went away. Remaining mini-trucks grew to midsize in vain attempt to leach fullsize pickup customers. But truck size wasn't the problem. It was a trend and gravytrain that simply came to and end.

Yes they have pickup beds, but it's a niche market that couldn't be more far removed from Detroit fullsize pickups.

@Denver Mike--Less development costs means a lower break even point. Much easier to make a profit if you have already incurred development costs Much less costly to share one assembly plant than to completely retool 3 or 5 other plants and incur a lengthy shut down. I still think you are working for Ford and are paid to propagate propaganda.

@Jeff S - "incurred" by no means, means "paid off". What part of this don't you understand??

Ford had to shut down plants for retooling and that's lost revenue for sure. It's also part of the investment.

The C/C twins definitely don't merit their own plant, and that piggybacking in effect, shuts down the plant for switching to FS vans, over and over. Very inefficient/costly, but it's the only way.

Yourself and the others claiming Ford made a mistake and GM made the right call are fooling yourselves. The facts prove it.

When I criticize Ford and praise Toyota or something, you guys are silent. But if it goes the other way I work for Ford?????????

@denver mike: "You keep lumping in midsize pickups in with Detroit fullsize pickups, as if they're all the same, profit-wise. Completely different animals. Yes they both have pickup beds, but that's where the similarities end, from a profitability aspect.

-- Not this time, D|M. I specifically separated the C-twins out as non-full-sized for the purpose of your argument.

"You're overlooking, oversimplifying too many things here. WAY TOO MANY!!!"

-- Well whaddaya know, DM does know how to read! Yes, I did oversimplify because that's all the statement needed. When, as has been clearly pointed out before, the OEMs give away so much cash on the hood just to price them close to their mid-sized offerings and don't bother to put as much cash on the hoods of their mid-sized trucks, it clearly shows that after the sale, the profit margins are nearly identical.

"Mini-trucks were wildly profitable when sales were through the roof. You keep forgetting it all comes down to volume sale. When volume went away, they went away. Remaining mini-trucks grew to midsize in vain attempt to leach fullsize pickup customers. But truck size wasn't the problem. It was a trend and gravytrain that simply came to and end."

-- I didn't say a word about compacts, D|M, so you're just trying to divert the discussion. Not biting this time.

Roadwhale and Jeff S,
This discussion is turning into a "mid" vs "full". That isn't a dimension I wanted to enter into. Be careful of DiMs tactics. He will try and railroad what you state to divert it away from the primary discussion.

My comment was directed towards the F-150 and my analysis of it's market performance and why it's sales aren't as high as they could be.

The F-150 has turned from the most profitable pickup into the most costly pickup. So if anyone attempts to make a comparison by using old information and data is not looking at the reality of the new aluminium 2015 F-150.

Here are my views on why the F-150 sales numbers are down and the reasons impacting the pickup;

1. Of the total F Series numbers the 2015 F-150 is not a large percentage and yet they have moderate incentives.

2. Development costs are very high for pickup. This means each and every pickup sold a greater portion of the money must pay down costs. This would be by far the most expensive pickup ever developed and dare I say one of the most or the most expensive vehicle ever developed.

Also, the use of aluminium is far more expensive than Ford is admitting to. Ford has already employed thousands more worker to produce the 2015 F-150 and yet F-150 production is much smaller.

3. The acceptance by the public by and large is lower than the previous steel F-150 by the;

a. new and uniqueness of the vehicle. Pickup buyers are generally more conservative as consumers. Add this to a high average transaction price and more people will baulk at the investing large sums of money needed to get into one.

b. lack of FE improvement vs it's competitors. Ford went to aluminium for it FE advantages. Ford sold this FE advantage heavily in initially. Once it was found the FE advantage wasn't as large as "thought" payload and tow was used. The problem with tow and load is 75% of pickup consumers don't really care about this.

c. Vehicle size to a degree. I do think US pickups are entering into a size bracket that was the domain of 3/4 pickups. Have 3/4 ton pickups ever represented the largest pickup segment. Their will be people who will buy a vehicle of this size, but sooner or later the ever larger pickup size will deter customers. Remember 75% are buying a pickup as a car/SUV alternative, not a working "truck".

d. Current low cost of fuel and cheap money. What position will Ford be in when the cost of fuel rises and interest rates rise?

The other manufacturers don't have the burden of a $10 billion dollar investment hanging over their heads and a more expensive pickup to manufacture. This will make the aluminium F-150 less competitive. Or, Ford will sell them at a loss.

e. Near future competition. As has been shown not all tests/reviews have been favourable to the aluminium F-150.

The aluminium F-150 should of entered the market as a game changer and not for just the motoring journo's. The public has to see the value in the additional retail price for the Ford in comparison to it's competition.

Ram has the best FE with 29mph highway. Ram was voted the most comfortable pickup to drive.

But yet we have GM as the largest pickup manufacturer.

Nissan and Toyota will be coming out with both mid size and full size pickups in the near future. This will also hamper Ford's effort with the new F-150.

That's why I hold the views I do about the F-150. That's all I have ever discuseed.

I have yet to state the F-150 is a poor pickup. It is a competitive pickup in the current market. Ford and it's pickups have gone down a notch and it will remain there for some time.

@RoadWhale - Now you're just arguing semantics: What you said and how you said it. Lawyer debate tactics.

You're obviously not disputing any points I drove home.

Bottom line is you're just looking at final transactional numbers. While they compare, it may be upto 20 years before a midsize pickup overcomes development costs, but as little as one year for Detroit fullsize pickups.

We know Detroit fullsizers average 25% margins, spread for their their production runs or generations, but it's likely around 2% margins for midsize, after development costs are paid back.

@Roadwhale

How on earth do you know which lines are profitable and which not? Do you have friends in the HQ at GM or Ford?

Or were you talking about dealer profits?

Personally I don't think you have any idea.

@BenverMike – I was never in the small pickup mafia. I have my opinions regarding what shapes the marketplace. I obviously do not agree with everything BigAl says but with that being said, I agree with him considerably more than with you.
@BigAl – Your blog style is getting closer and closer to that of Pch101. You’ve gotten rather chippy when bloggers disagree with you. Lately that is basically everyone.
As far as Ford’s costs, you haven’t posted any real evidence. Even if your 10 billion cost is correct you haven’t done your math when it comes to amortization. Between USA and Canada Ford is selling around 875,000 F Series per year. They increased the price $395 - $3,615 (USA) per unit. The median increase is $2,005 dollars per unit.
That means Ford will have a R&D breakeven point at 5.7 years assuming that there isn’t a hidden R&D cost automatically built into the price of every vehicle sold (the most likely scenario).
Ford is still earning at least 10-13K per unit. (Industry analyst estimations).
Ford’s last 4 generations were changed over every 4-6 years. (Gen12 -5, Gen11 -4, Gen10 – 6, Gen9 – 5).
The Chicken Little repertoire is getting a bit old.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
GM’s data indicates that there was 16% of ½ ton buyers who purchased them because a viable small truck wasn’t available. The Colorado/Canyon 10% conquest rate indicates that your belief about the GM siblings hurting the aluminum F150 was just methane by anaerobic decomposition.

@Lou_BC,
First up, if you've noticed I will only enter into the "poulet impot" if it is brought up by my detractors. They do, do this to enter into a fray with me.

Also, with my chicken tax discussions I have recognised and have repeatedly stated that mid size will not be a large a seller as full size. This is a juvenile troule on your part. I did consider you to be more mature.

Aligning myself with Pch101 is another form of trouling.

Why do you attempt to discredit me?? Something to do with Ford??

Lou, as for my beliefs in the F-150 and how it's heading. I will not view it as otherwise until I can see proof that I have made an incorrect judgment.

So, far, I do think I'm correct.

I also have not "trashed" the new F-150. Again, it is good pickup.

But, I will state that GM will rule the pickup roost for the foreseeable future. If this is what pi$$ing you off, learn to live with it.

My views seem to be quite accurate so far in relation to the direction the US pickup market is heading in.

Remember when I stated years ago, that the US will one day have full size pickups, I was laughed at. When I stated the US will have diesel mid sizers the response was even worse.

My predictions regarding the new F-150 haven't changed since the announcement of the pickup.

That was quite some time ago. Maybe I have a better take on the US pickup market than many.

@Lou_BC,
Your prediction for the paying down of the investment seems rather quick.

Consider incentives, it seems early in the piece Ford is offering between $3k and $4k in incentives.

Multiply this by your "guesstimate" of number of F-150s sold.

The multiply your total by a factor of 1.1 to allow for the reduced numbers of F-150s that will sell.

@Big Al--That is what DM likes to do is draw into an argument of full size against midsize which is about like a political argument of Republicans against Democrats. The truth is one size does not fit all and it is good to have a market that offers more than one size. Lou's needs are different than mine and he has an crew cab F-150 that meets his needs better. A midsize like a Colorado extend cab is a perfect size for my needs--not too small and not too big. I don't see midsize trucks taking the place of full size trucks but I see them as meeting the needs of those who don't want full size. I do want the manufacturers to make a profit because if there is no profit then there is no product. If GM has to use a global platform and limit color and interior choices to make a profit then I can live with that. GM is playing it conservative on the Colorado/Canyon in that they are sharing a plant that makes vans but then I understand that because they need to see how these twins sell. It appears they are selling well and if sales are maintained at a decent level GM will most likely increase production.

@BigAl - I don't really care how well any new truck sells other than from a taxpayer prospective I don't like my great grandchildren being stuck with the legacy of bailouts.

I'd be more inclined to buy a Chevy since I'm not an early adopter. My local dealer has zero problems selling 2015 F150's. The local dealer had problems selling Silverado's and Sierra's when the new gen first came out.

I'm interested in the Colorado/Canyon and I'm more inclined to downsize next time around but if I walk on a dealer lot and they say 12k off a fullsizer and 4k off a smaller truck I'd be hard pressed to pull the trigger on the smaller truck.

@Lou_BC,
I do hope Ford gets this right.

I'm actually a little dismayed by Ford and the way they have gone about this.

I hope GM doesn't go the full hog with aluminium.

If GM and even FCA start with fenders, doors and pickup tubs their pickups will weigh the same as the Ford and they can still use the same chassis. An important competitive advantage over Ford.

All GM and FCA need to concentrate on is engine/drivetrains and aerodynamics.

As for the Colorado, I'm keen to see what the new Taco offers. I do think it is a little more than a refresh, or at a minimum a major refresh.

Toyota can't afford to spend billions on the Taco like the Hilux as the Taco is another "one" market vehicle. This is working against the US pickup trucks.

This new Ford highlights this and my view the US pickup market is a Jurassic Park.

Restructuring and views need to change to maintain the market viability in the NA for these types of vehicles.

@Big Al: "This discussion is turning into a "mid" vs "full". That isn't a dimension I wanted to enter into. Be careful of DiMs tactics. He will try and railroad what you state to divert it away from the primary discussion."
-- Agreed.

@Denver Mike: "Now you're just arguing semantics: What you said and how you said it."
-- Nope. That's your game.

@Papa Jim: "How on earth do you know which lines are profitable and which not? Do you have friends in the HQ at GM or Ford?"
-- Forgetful, are we? I told you years ago what experience I had in the truck business.

@Jeff S - I'm the one trying to keep midsize and fullsize pickup topics SEPARATE! Two different sides of the planet. They only share a "pickup bed" in common.

When it comes to profitability, might as well compare Detroit fullsize pickups to compact roadsters while they're at it!

@roadwhale, Vulpine or whatever you're calling yourself these days.

Now the rest of us are convinced! you have no bloody idea.

Just BS!

@Denver Mike--What compact roadsters? Mazda Miata maybe but if you are referring to compact single cab pickups they don't exist anymore. The current selection of midsize trucks is not even close to a roadster. Maybe you are in a time warp if you think that the Colorado/Canyon, Frontier, and Tacoma are compact and resemble roadsters. The smallest truck I ever had was a regular cab Mighty Max with an 8 ft bed which is the exact length of my extended cab S-10 which has a shorter bed. The current midsize trucks are a perfect size for my needs and I doubt I would ever go back to a true single cab compact truck if they offered one which I seriously doubt they will. If you truly want a large truck there is an article about the self driving truck--just put a bed on it and it should haul most anything.

@Big Al--I am starting to see a number of 2015 F-150's mostly crew cabs. I think the verdict is still out as to how successful they will be but I do believe there will be some discounting on them when they reach full production because GM and Ram will not sit on the fence and do nothing. I think you will see some competitive pricing on full size trucks from the Big 3 especially Ram which is eager to gain a larger market share. I see a lot of new Ram trucks and the discounts have been very competitive.

From what I have observed most who have bought recent F-150's with the Eco-boost have had little or no problems and they are overall satisfied. I would expect the 2015's to be about the same except the price is higher but then when the inventories build up you might see competitive prices and more acceptance of them. I do agree with you that GM and Ram would be better off to not make an entirely aluminum body but use aluminum doors, hoods, and beds with high tensile steel. The combination of metals would be less costly and the manufacturing plants would not need to be completely revamped as Ford as had to do.

Try again, Papa Jim. It's obvious you're far more clueless than I. After all, you've never been there, have you? You've been a buyer all your life, never involved with the other side of the industry at all.

Again, my knowledge comes from personal experience. That's all I need to say.

@Big AL from Oz,

If you're keen to wondering what the next gen Taco will be offering, just do a search and you will find that it's just going to be a major refresh that makes it look even uglier like most Toyota refreshes these days with the same basic body shell section of the current model. Both the refreshed Tundra and next gen Camry have followed this pattern.

The only thing that remains to be revealed is what kind of power figures the new 3.5L V6 will have. I'm thinking it will have probably at least 300-310 hp to compete with the 306 hp V6 in the new GM mid-sized twins..

Other than that, it doesn't look like it will be a significant change or major improvement over the current model. A little more power and perhaps a little more MPG from the Atkinson cycle feature and a new transmission, but that's about it.

There was an article on PUTC about a month or so ago on the 2016 Tacoma which verifies what the other mike is saying. I don't think will we ever see the global Hilux which would be my preference.

I see that most of the pickuptruck.com posters still have not figured out this useless stat. They think the Colorado is the best selling pick up because it is on this list when the fact is they only sold just over 7,000 of them last month.

Pickuptruck.com has some of the lowest IQ posters on the internet.

@the other mike,
Did I state any different?

Doh!

@Jeff S,
Ford will be in the top three with pickup numbers.

But it will not be number one. This seems to upset many. I have given my reasoning for my views.

Ford really can't be as competitive as the others, unless it runs at a loss.

@Big Al--I think Ford will end up Number 2 but I think they will eventually turn a nice profit on the F-150 but they have some time before they recover their costs.

Assembly delays I suspect are affecting F150 sales but I doubt fears about aluminum are a big issue. Some have made the comment that the 2015 F150 looks and feels too much like the previous generation. That may be the biggest problem facing Ford. They chose a radical new build design wrapped up in a conservative evolution of design.

I like the looks of the Colorado more than the Canyon partially because the Canyon is a mini-me Sierra.

One needs to realistically look at best and worst sellers from the prospective of supply and demand.
GM is selling their new small trucks as fast as they can make them. The temptation is to increase production but that is a bad strategy as initial pent up demand wains into a sustainable purchase rate.
The new F150 is selling well considering minimal rebates and the fact that 60% of them are high end high dollar models. A 19 day inventory rate for $50-60k pickups is amazing.

@Lou_BC,
I agree the use of aluminium isn't a huge impact.

But Ford is facing many small impacts with the F-150 as I've highlighted.

This adds up and is a problem.

From a production perspective. Ford is using a significant amount more labour to manufacture them.

I have read that Ford expects it's Dearborn and Kansas City plants to be able to produce 700 000 F-150s per year.

But there is a plant in Louisiana also.

Even if Dearborn and Kansas City are to produce 500 000 a year they are well off that target. Ford can't afford much time rolling out the F-150.

Delays will cost Ford, even in people changing allegiances.

The some mid/higher end F-150s have hit their production limits as can be witnessed with incentives.

GM should be able to import much of the Colorado from overseas. Even if engines were in short supply Australia manufactures them. Thailand manufactures bodies and much of the Colorado would come from China as well.

When/if Colorado Canyon demand slows, GM can roll out the diesel and cab chassis variants rekindling a small amount of interest.

Lou_BC works for Ford. GM is selling the most trucks and is winning this battle. Plain and simple.

Remember Apollo 13 is watching.

LOL, we are into the 5th month of 2015 now and you have the fan boys of both Ford and GM saying just wait until they get their production to full capacity. Two of the worlds largest manufactures in the world and neither one according the geniuses on pickuptrucks.com can get their production lines up and running.

LOL, what happened to General Motors had added more workers to their line so they could crank out them midsize pickups?

I do not buy either Ford or General Motors having problems on their production lines. This excuse has been used for months and months now.

General Motors had doubled the workers way back in November or December of 2014 and here we are with the claims still of "wait until General Motors gets their production line up to speed" excuse when General Motors doubled it man power and added shifts in 2014.

Ford has one plant up and running full bore while the other plant is just about at full capacity capability as well. There are no production issues when it comes to capacity, but that is the big excuse. Hell Ford still has to unload a bunch of 2014 F150's that they over built last year. Where I live there are plenty of F150's on the dealers lots yet I don't see but a hand full on the street in customers hands.

I am sorry but the excuse of wait until they get production up and running, well lets just say that dog does not hunt.

Maybe in the first two or three months they both could have gotten away with that excuse but not five months into 2015.

But General Motors has a bigger problem in they doubled their workers and added another shift yet the claim is they can't produce many of their new midsize pickups. How do you add a shift and double your work force and still can't produce?

Face it General Motors already knew how many midsize trucks they where going to sell and they are producing to match their expected market share, in other words General Motors is already at the market share they expected. You won't see sales change much from this point forward and they will continue to just produce the same number.

Ford has a bigger problem in their new Aluminum F150 has not taken off like they thought it would and they have already had to offer up to 4,000 dollars on the hood to move them. That rebate number is only going to get bigger as they start to run out of 2014 F150s in the next three months. Now that is funny Ford having so many of last years 2014 F150's still for sale in what will be June or even July of 2015. I believe that Ford is doing the same thing General Motors is and that is managing the production of the F150 to match the market share.

Sorry GM and Ford fan boys but the excuses are getting old and stale.

@BAFO,

Doh?

In your post concerning the next gen Taco, you implied that you were waiting until the 2016 Tacoma debuts to find out how "keen" you would be towards it.

However, since we already know what it's going to look like and the engines that will be offered, an updated 2.7 and Atkinson cycle 3.5L V6 with 6-speed automatic or 6-speed manual transmission, we pretty much know all there is except for the actual power figures and MPG.

Considering the fact that it's just going to be a warmed over, major face-lifted current model with updated engines, you should already have a fairly good idea on how "keen" you feel towards it compared to the competition.

Of course, it's always better to wait until you see it in person and test drive the different power-trains to confirm how well it actually compares to the segment leading GM mid-sized CC twins. However, I don't think it's going to be that much of a serious challenge other than having the Toyota nameplate that some think still matters when it comes to quality and dependability.

One thing is for sure though, the resale value will probably be higher due to this outdated mindset like it has been on the current generation.

@ the other mike,
Your comment doesn't illustrate much more than a very basic perception.

So, will the shock mounting system of the cab to the chassis be hydraulic?

What will the NVH levels be like?

How well will the Atkinson Cycle engine perform?

How well with the gear ratio's match the engine/vehicle?

What form of suspension tuning changes will there be?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

What will the FE be?

Sort like the comparison between the Colorado and the Frontier/Taco. The results were just that numbers.

I tells little about what is important in a vehicle purchase, ie, how the vehicle "feels", vehicle refinement, quality, etc.

These are just as important.

This mostest, bigger numbers, biggest, fastest does nothing to show what a vehicle is like to live with day to day.

It seems when debate turns to this direction on PUTC many of the commenters are lost.



The comments to this entry are closed.