3) will for present habits:
There is no question that the verb (or verbs; there may be several) will is one of the very trickiest ones in the English language for foreigners ever to master. The deontic senses are seldom intuitive to a non-native speaker. I strongly advise you to carefully study the OED’s entry for this word’s incredibly many subtle uses.
In this case, your two examples are not of the same thing at all, and you have mischaracterized them. The first uses will to express habitual action; it does not indicate a simple future situation. This is the OED’s sense 8 for this verb:
8. Expressing natural disposition to do something, and hence habitual action: Has the habit, or ‘a way’, of ––ing; is addicted or accustomed to ––ing; habitually does; sometimes connoting ‘may be expected to’
This is related to sense 15, which is still not a simple future, albeit perhaps closer to that:
15. As auxiliary of future expressing a contingent event, or a result to be expected, in a supposed case or under particular conditions (with the condition expressed by a conditional, temporal, or imper. clause, or otherwise implied).
Your second example, the one about the car, is completely different. This corresponds to OED sense 12:
12. With negative, expressing the contrary of senses (def#6), (def#7), (def#10), (def#11): thus commonly = refuse or decline to; emph. insist on or persist in not --ing. Also fig. of a thing. (See also (def#9), (def#13).)
Here, your car is persisting in not starting. It is the figurative sense at the end extending to things, as though they had the will to refuse. The referenced senses 9 and 13 are respectively:
9. Expressing potentiality, capacity, or sufficiency: Can, may, is able to, is capable of --ing; is (large) enough or sufficient to.
15. As auxiliary of future expressing a contingent event, or a result to be expected, in a supposed case or under particular conditions (with the condition expressed by a conditional, temporal, or imper. clause, or otherwise implied).
As I said, will is quite complex. Please study standard reference works regarding its use.
I would say opposite of me is just plain wrong. It has virtually no currency...
(If you click on the chart itself, you'll see that opposite of me doesn't occur enough to graph.)
I can only assume OP's citations involve people who are conflating two different usages...
Jack Sprat sat opposite his wife...
He is opposite her (because he's on the other side of the table)
He is the opposite of her (because he will eat no fat, whereas she will eat no lean)
Centuries ago, both these senses were actually more likely to be expressed using the preposition to. This NGram shows how to has simply been discarded for OP's sense of facing, on the other side, and this one shows how it's been replaced by of for the more figurative complete contrast sense.
Best Answer
The usage is perfectly common and natural in colloquial speech for many people, but it wouldn't be considered acceptable in more formal contexts. It's certainly no more AmE than BrE.
Generally, to say for [pro]noun to [do or be something] implies call for them to do/be [whatever]. Thus it can't always be assumed that tell is a valid substitution. OP's final construction is more likely to be used where the speaker is claiming he never said "I hope he rots in hell" (spoken to a third party), rather than "I hope you rot in hell" (words addressed to "him").
Even in OP's first two examples, it's quite possible the speaker means he never suggested to anyone else that you/he should disguise your true self/call his probation officer. Only the precise context might make this clear - but personally, if it didn't, my inclination would be to favour the told other people interpretation.