tfergusonmahacham
turd ferguson
tfergusonmahacham

If this is the price QSWs are going for these days, I guess I should've held onto mine. They are nice cars—they drive well, but they are slow, slow, slow with the stock 2.2 10v. The stock engine also has a tendency to blow head gaskets. On the other hand, the inline-5 sounds great, the quattro driveline will see

Refusing a police officer's request/demand to search your home, vehicle, or person can't provide the reasonable suspicion required to justify the search. It is every citizen's right to refuse to consent to a warrantless search. The cop may not have been wrong "wondering if something was up," but a hunch or

The US Supreme Court ruled that a dog sniff is not a "search" (in the 4th Amendment sense) if it can be accomplished without unreasonably prolonging the traffic stop. This means that it is okay to increase the length of the traffic stop to accomplish the dog sniff, just not "unreasonably" so. What is unreasonable

He certainly approved in "The Last Waltz"!

Yeah, well the cops try to justify pretty much every vehicle search nowadays by suggesting that there was reasonable suspicion of drug activity because the vehicle was traveling on a "known drug-smuggling corridor." Ergo, it is reasonable to suspect a person driving on that road of smuggling drugs.

Maybe with respect to the facts of a particular case, but this is going to be a case-specific analysis (at least in the Sixth Circuit, where I am and where this old man got pulled over) not really amenable to a bright-line "X number of minutes" rule. The first question always has to be what is the offense that

Not entirely true. Use of a drug-sniffing dog does not implicate the 4th Amendment only if its use does not unreasonably prolong the duration of the stop.

Judging by that picture (particularly whatever is happening on or around the broken-out back window), I'd say it's been there for longer than overnight...

And here I thought I was the only one who remembered this short-lived show.

Oh, I know. I hardly ever buy vehicles with less than 100K on them, and I've had some forced-induction vehicles in my time so I know all about shaft play, seals going out, failing wastegate controllers, etc. But if these Ecoboost engines turn out to handle boost as well as some of the other cars I've owned, the need

I learned something today. I had no idea there was any such thing as an eco-boosted Flex. That is pretty damned cool. I don't buy new cars, but I might have to keep my eye open for one of those in 5-10 years!

Yes, when optioned correctly, the Camaro can perform decently. But it has certainly lost something along the way. So has the Mustang. So has the Challenger. I'm not being a partisan fanboy here—all of these cars are heavy on the retro style and heavy on the curb weight as well. Retro style makes me sad because it

I loved mine. Except for its propensity to blow head gaskets and chuck serpentine belts.

That's my point. The Camaro exalts style over all else, resulting in a car with:

Calling this lardy monstrosity a ZL1 is a fine bit of blasphemy.

It comes standard with "rear park assist." That should answer your question.

Bad. Ass.

How about the '42 DeSoto (the first "mass-market" car with hidden lights)?

Well chosen. You know, American manufacturers did the "hidden headlight" look really well back in the '60s. Not the pop-ups so much as the full-width grille look. Impalas, Rivs, Camaros, Cougars, Chargers, Furys (Furies?), 300s, the list goes on.