Rod Is In The Details
Yeah, this has got to get about 2mpg, but if you want to be intimidating, get behind the wheel of this thing, and get up close behind my doll-sized Honda Insight. I will pull over and let you pass. Pull up close behind me in a Hummer and I will merely be irritated.
"Pull up close behind me in a Hummer and I will merely be irritated."
Anyone who reads this blog knows that you don't do irritation in a "mere" way. You've raised irritation to the level of an industry!
Lena-doodle-doo at April 16, 2005 12:11 PM
Would you like me to do you an image edit so the damn car can actually be seen? The gamma needs lifting by at least 2.5....
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at April 16, 2005 3:05 PM
Thanks, that would be great.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2005 3:12 PM
"The gamma needs lifting by at least 2.5."
Stu, while you're at it, do you think you could do something about my tits?
Lena at April 16, 2005 3:22 PM
I'm not sure, but isn't the a Plymouth Satellite? SAy what you want, but beneath the primer there is pure art behind that muscle car.
eric at April 16, 2005 7:31 PM
Actually, I think that's a Pontiac GTO. Circa 1964/65 maybe? I could be wrong...
Goddyss at April 18, 2005 10:38 AM
Nope - that's a '72 or '73 Dodge Charger. It was produced with V-8 engines of either 318, 383, 400 or 440 cubic inches. It got about 13 to 17MPG depending on trim. Restored, detailed and kitted models can easily top 600HP and run in the 9-second range at quarter-mile tracks; at the 400HP level, it is possible to reach 20MPG. This is due to technological advances in fuel and spark control over the years.
Weaknesses - it has a unibody too flexible for precise steering - the door opening is really long - and it rusts easily. It has lots of room.
This raises an interesting question: Which is more friendly to the environment: the restoration and modernization of a "classic" car, or the purchase of a new one? Fuel consumption isn't the whole story.
Radwaste at April 21, 2005 4:59 PM
Leave a comment