Can anyone identiff\y this gauge cluster? I really like it for some reason. Looks vaguely Alfa-esque, as well.

Well, maybe not the hard riding AMG one.

Looks great! I really like the GLA, actually, but I doubt I'd ever buy one since the A is just as practical, I don't need extra ground clearance or 4WD, and it'll handle better with a lower centre of gravity. This is an image car.

That interior is, uh, interesting.

Aston Martin V12 Vantage. Manual gearbox, RWD, V12, Aston styling. What's there not to like?

I should probably clarify that I don't think the Wrangler is hideously unsafe. Build quality could be a bit better if it's catching fire, and it's not the safest car on the market, but then you don't buy one for the safety. You buy it because it's awesome and charismatic.

I notice that nobody is jumping on the Wrangler for being hideously unsafe and horribly built like they did the Model S. Just goes to show, we're all nuts (me especially).

You know it, baby. Wanna go get some pan galactic gargle blasters?

Love this song. Great choice.

Please, no.

This is why V12s are great.

You may have had the previous generation Charger, which was a good car, though it also had an awful, horrific interior. The old 300 and Charger are pretty good cars, because they have a great body on an old E-class chassis. But the new ones are pretty awful.

Still, I'd rather have a quality European car than a plasticky, unrefined American one.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the Charger, 300, Challenger, or Dart are good. The Dart is okay but far outclassed by it's competitors, not to mention the fact that the Alfa Romeo Giulietta is a nicer car. The 300 received Fifth gear's lowest team test score ever, and the only good thing they found was that it was…

Let's say you're getting 20 MPG, and you drive 15,000 miles a year. That's 750 gallons of petrol. At $3.30 per gallon, that comes to $2,475 a year. If you get 45 MPG but drive the same distance, then you'd pay $1,100 a year. Now I don't know about you, but $1,375 isn't something I'd just find down the back of the…

I don't think they're nearly as unreliable as you think. Technology can, amazingly, help make an engine last longer as well. As for expense, big American engines are almost invariably thirstier than small European and Asian engines. And fuel costs a lot of money over the lifetime of a car, even with your cheap petrol…

Red is the color of the devil.

I'd still much rather have a V40 D2 than a Crown Vic.

Only because the truly reliable American cars are using 40 year old technology. Not that that's bad, it means they work incredibly well in certain environments, but because most of them have very large engines it makes then incredibly expensive to run, more than offsetting the cost of the somewhat better reliability.

Nah, Americans don't want cars that are cheap to run. Otherwise they'd stop buying cars with massive engines. Everything over there has a huge engine, and diesels are nonexistent. If they wanted truly cheap cars, they'd be buying Toyota Yarises, Honda Fits, Ford Fiestas, and other small cars that are very practical…