2023 Jeep Wrangler 4xe Rubicon 4x4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Massachusetts man charged $48,000 for a tow [w/video]

Tow truck operators are right up there with landlords and IRS auditors on the list of professionals you don't want to deal with. A man in Massachusetts has all the more reason to avoid a tow after he was hit with a $48,000 bill, Fox 25 reports. Joel Ramer and his girlfriend were off-roading in Walpole, MA last week when they wandered were they shouldn't have. They landed in a mud pit on private property. Ramer said it took Assured Collision towing company 12 hours to free his vehicle from the muck. But when he got the bill for the tow, he thought the accounting department must have been off by a decimal. "When I went to pick up the vehicle from Assured Collision, he'd informed me there was some damage done to the vehicle, but didn't get into details. He also informed me the bill was $48,000," Ramer told Fox. "I thought they made a mistake." The phrase 'some damage' was putting it lightly. Ramer says Assured Collision totaled his Jeep. "Frame is broken, leaf spring is broken, drive shaft is broken," Ramer said. The itemized bill showed Ramer exactly what he was paying for. Assured Collision charged him $16,000 for an on-scene supervisor. That's $1,250 an hour. The Statewide Towing Association told Fox 25 that the actual industry standard is $175-$325 an hour. The company also claimed that power lines put them at risk, calling it a "hazmat situation." That allowed them to tack on another $5,000 fee for dangerous condition liability insurance. Finally, there was an extra $10,000 fee for an off-road recovery incident response unit. Insurance won't help with the cost of the tow, so Ramer's broke Jeep is in Assured Collision's hands. On top of the enormous bill and busted Jeep, Ramer was arrested and cited for trespassing on land owned by a utility company and disturbing the peace. Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

Driving the Panamera and Mike's Rant | Autoblog Podcast #487

This week we cover some recent news like the upcoming Land Rover Discovery, updates to FCA's large car platform (including the Challenger), and talk about water injection. Then we go into what we've been driving - David just finished his time in the Porsche Panamera Turbo and Mike tried the GMC Acadia. And then Mike (who is still uncomfortable writing in the third person) goes on a rant about why automakers shouldn't specify which cars are aimed at women. The rundown is below. Remember, if you have a car-related question you'd like us to answer or you want questionable buying advice, send a message or a voice memo to podcast at autoblog dot com. Autoblog Podcast #487 The video meant to be presented here is no longer available. Sorry for the inconvenience. Topics and stories we mention Land Rover is bringing a new Discovery to the Paris Motor Show An AWD Challenger is coming, which means more Hellcat The Jeep Wrangler finally gets modern headlights Water Injection from the BMW M4 GTS is coming to the mass market 2017 GMC Acadia 2017 Porsche Panamera Turbo A rant about sexism in marketing Another take on the $6000 fun car Rundown Intro - 00:00 The news - 00:50 What we've been driving - 11:30 Rant - 30:49 Listener's fun car - 35:56 Total Duration: 42:22 Get The Podcast iTunes – Subscribe to the Autoblog Podcast in iTunes RSS – Add the Autoblog Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator MP3 – Download the MP3 directly Feedback Email – Podcast at Autoblog dot com Review the show in iTunes

What would you drive in 1985?

Bereft of live baseball games to watch, I've turned to the good ship YouTube to watch classic games. While watching the 1985 American League Championship Series last night, several of the broadcast's commercials made its way into the original VHS recording, including those for cars. "Only 8.8% financing on a 1985 Ford Tempo!" What a deal! That got me thinking: what would I drive in 1985?  It sure wouldn't be a Tempo. Or an IROC-Z, for that matter, despite what my Photoshopped 1980s self would indicate in the picture above. I posed this question to my fellow Autobloggists. Only one could actually drive back then, I was only 2 and a few editors weren't even close to being born. Here are our choices, which were simply made with the edict of "Come on, man, be realistic."  West Coast Editor James Riswick: OK, I started this, I'll go first. I like coupes today, so I'm pretty sure I'd drive one back then. I definitely don't see myself driving some badge-engineered GM thing from 1985, and although a Honda Prelude has a certain appeal, I must admit that something European would likely be in order. A BMW maybe? No, I'm too much a contrarian for that. The answer is therefore a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo 3-Door, which is not only a coupe but a hatchback, too. If I could scrounge up enough Reagan-era bucks for the ultra-cool SPG model, that would be rad. The 900 Turbo pictured, which was for auction on Bring a Trailer a few years ago, came with plum-colored Bokhara Red, and you're damn sure I would've had me one of those. Nevermind 1985, I'd probably drive this thing today.   Associate Editor Byron Hurd: I'm going to go with the 1985.5 Ford Mustang SVO, AKA the turbocharged Fox Body that everybody remembers but nobody drives. The mid-year update to the SVO bumped the power up from 175 ponies (yeah, yeah) to 205, making it almost as powerful (on paper, anyway) as the V8-powered GT models offered in the same time frame. I chose this particular car because it's a bit of a time capsule and, simultaneously, a reminder that all things are cyclical. Here we are, 35 years later, and 2.3-liter turbocharged Mustangs are a thing again. Who would have guessed?