Search results

I had DWS06s on the Trackhawk and really liked them, also on a Golf R, and currently on the AWD Challengers. If Conti made them in the correct size, they'd be on the '19 Durango, too.

True, if not exceeding, say 50 mph, just going slowly at city traffic speeds to a car show and such, the tires aren't likely to blow apart. Heck, I have 20+ year old radials on one vehicle, but it never leaves the property, or go faster than maybe 10 mph. On the other hand, I have photos of an...

That's likely because people are smart enough to replace them before they start coming apart. Plus that most wear them out before they're six years old.

I'm not overly concerned with the durometer values. If anything a harder compound makes it easier to go sideways. What I do not care for with elderly tires is their tendency to shred parts. The potential collateral damage to fenders etc. is what I want to avoid. Compared to that even the...

That's why I was pissed when getting two year old tires from Tire Rack. For now the ones from '18 are still on there, until I get around to find fresh tires for the Challenger.

I had American Collectors on a Jeep M38 and they were good. Not that I've ever had any claims, so I don't really know how good any insurance company is when it counts.

Especially since it's a C&C, which has a derated engine with less power than even the standard output Cummins. And my 250 Cummins in the M936 is a complete slouch. Naturally aspirated and asked to move 40K lbs. (through a slushbox) I'm not surprised.

I tried that a couple of years ago, it would've cost me more.

You'll be happy to know that when at 39,000 CGVW I'm down to 45 on some of the longer and steeper grades.

Proof that a small engine can use more fuel than the real thing when asked to do something beyond a commute, a Home Depot visit, or to get a latte. But I already knew that after pulling a 16' enclosed trailer with an F-150 Ecoboost and getting much worse mileage than with my 5.7 Ram 2500. My...

I usually get between 10 and 11 mpg with the Ram, but even if I manage 24 in the Durango it'll be worse for me. That's because the Ram holds 110 gallons and the Durango a measly 24.6. If only the Challenger had a 25 to 35 gallon capacity it'd be the great GT car it could be.

My girlfriend got a Cayman from Colorado like that. As I recall the holder required four holes, which is plenty bad enough, and there was EIGHT of them. She ordered a new one, which arrived without any holes.

I care because I hate stopping, so the farther I can go without having to stop for gas the better. Yes, I could improve the distance/fuel economy by quite a bit by driving more slowly, but what's the fun in doing that?

Wimp.

Have you considered getting a houseboat and an Amphicar?

There has to be some sort of reason for that premium. Heck, my '18 'Cat is about $70/mo, full coverage. And let's pretend that your 2003 Ram and my Peterbilt are comparable...the Pete is $1,400 per year as I recall, also full coverage, and I think we put the value of it at $75K.

Even if you drop the alligator coverage?

Have they ever added a decent base, like 4- or larger, then put gravel on top?

Yeah, with you driving. But imagine an elderly New Yorker used to going straight between stoplights trying it.

This isn't some Godforsaken corner of New York, or somewhere in Kansas or Florida, pal. There are hills here in the Rockies and the roads have to conform to the terrain accordingly by being curvy. Yet many are still quite steep. Sure, you can usually double the speed through the ones with 10...