There’s a good chance that the original M112 succumbed to the worn cam / balance shaft sprocket issue, which was the subject of a recall and a bunch of lawsuits. The later M112s didn’t have that issue, and are 400k-mile taxi motors.

Mercedes sold a lot of ML models over the years despite the original truck looking a bit like an Oompa-Loompa from certain angles.

The mechanical bits on that Saab are, more or less, common GM parts from that era. I doubt keeping it in good running shape will be that difficult. Body panels and interior trim bits are another story.

You must be kevin durant, with a reach that huge.

The race was on an airstrip and the article didnt mention street racing once. The video posted wasnt even the same car...and was mostly dragstrip footage. What are you talking about?

As long as the buyer understands that $7,200 is the down payment and that some parts will be incredibly difficult to find, they’ll be fine. Just the same, I am not that buyer, so sad ND for me.

Anyone that believes this rumor has never been in an 86/BRZ. They have an economy feel to them that isn’t fitting for Lexus’s premium branding, IMO. 

This is a nice price for a Saab enthusiast. If you only have $7,200 or so for a daily driver, do not buy this wagon. You will regret it over and over. You have to be dedicated to this car for it’s own sake beyond what it can do for you.

That last bit. It’s going to cost a buyer way more than the asking.

This. All of these people who scream about the 2nd Amendment are screaming about the wrong amendment. No set of amendment related rights has been eroded more perversely over the last 25 years than the 4th.

There is no evidence at all to suggest that the driver was drunk.

It’s not really gray. If you want to pull someone over for drunk driving, do it before they reach home. Once they reach home and aren’t driving anymore. It’s a different animal.  There was no chase. The cop simply followed him. 

And you can’t wrap your head around the fact that the cop followed him for miles and only lit him up as he was about to turn into his driveway. I too would’ve continued to drive into my garage because if there was a problem, why didn’t the cop pull me over earlier?

It was illegal from the get go.  The two prior courts simply got it wrong. 

No, it wasn’t.  The 4th Amendment has been enforce since 1789.  It’s not a new concept.

Why did the cop let him drive for so long without lighting him up if he suspected drunk driving? Seems he should have pulled him over immediately. 

It’s interesting that you would take the word of a police officer who broke the law over the private citizen.

Was he breathalysed? What was the reading? Because the story here doesn’t say he was, so I’m not gonna take a cop’s word for it that they smelled anything if they cannot substantiate that claim. Cops claim they smell things because it is not something that can be disproven by cameras. Well, not yet anyway.

Is there any actual evidence he was drunk driving? As far as I know “claims to smell alcohol” is not a legal metric. Did a breath alcohol or blood test confirm this? Otherwise it’s the cop’s word against the private citizen.  His “crime” was playing music too loud - hardly much of a crime to set aside the 4th…

The 4th amendment is not a technicality.