Here you go...

I have to wonder if the original wheel design would pass the SAE J2530 tests. I read the thread and got the sense that these wheels might have first belonged to an owner who was told that the spokes sheared due to the torque loads imposed on them.

I agree for most situations, but there are a few where the frustration isn't entirely unjustified. For example, if the intersection gains a turning lane and that turn is only allowed on the green arrow, coasting up behind the straight-through queue too slowly could cost the person behind you a chance at making their…

I had that failure on my '96 T-bird about 10 years ago (fortunately I was within visual distance of home when it happened) and Ford fixed it for free under a kind of silent recall. I wouldn't be surprised if that program is over by now, though.

I too log about 40k miles a year, and for every dumb trucker I see, there are about 20 asshats in cars.

There isn't anything in the axle assembly that can be braced to. Also, many van trailers have the ability to adjust the placement of the rear axle - the driver can unlock their position, activate the trailer brakes and then drive the truck forward or rearward to position the wheels somewhere else on the trailer frame…

And finally, the commenter said it reminded him of a special edition 300M, which probably rules out the convertible... but whatever its flaws, at least the 1st generation convertible was an attractive car to look at when the top was in the right place.

And here's its midcycle refresh. I like its immediate predecessor better, but I certainly wouldn't be snarking about someone's vision if they said this was a nice-looking car.

Not every Sebring is a 2007-2010, ya know. Here's an early '00's model.

I wish I'd seen the time my dad towed our '69 Dodge semi with his '78 F-150. The truck had a clutch failure while hauling a load of grain to the elevator in town, and the F-150 was the tool he had so it was the tool he used. The story goes that trying it in 2wd just resulted in a big smoky burnout, so he put it in…

It's an old Dodge tradition and it's an easy visual identifier. Their current streak goes back into the K-car days, it's been on the cars at least as early as 1955 (pictured) and as early as 1940 on the trucks.

I got 25 from my Challenger R/T on my first highway trip without much effort, so your neighbor's results are in the believable range (though at the high end) to me. The V6 Challenger's statistics line up pretty well with my old '96 V8 T-bird and I did get high 20's sometimes from that car, and even 31 MPG once.

The 'Stang V6 does get 31 highway per the EPA... but, like with the Camaro, you have to get the automatic. The manual is 29 highway.

For regular broadcast ads, I loved this one for the '05 Dakota.

Chrysler had some fun ones in that time frame.

For Super Bowl car ads, I have to go with the Mustang convertible introduction from a few years back.

So if I looked at the Mustang, and at the Camaro, and even at the Genesis, and decided in the end that the Challenger was the right car for me, I'm uneducated?

Should be 1010... I don't know where I got the 8 from. I blame my almost 600 mile excursion today from Fargo, to Minneapolis (for the motorcycle show), into Wisconsin (to see a bit of the St. Croix river valley) then back home on an interstate-avoidance route.

'10 Dodge Challenger R/T: 410 lb-ft

I can remember a world when the X-body was new. But I don't remember them ever being fun.