Vehicular Fuelishness
anybody want a peanut? -- fezzik
Out with the jacked-up Old (18-20 mpg)...
In with the... um, down-to-earth slightly less old (35-40+ mpg)
Will someone please explain why driving at lugnut height burns less fuel?
Out with the jacked-up Old (18-20 mpg)...
In with the... um, down-to-earth slightly less old (35-40+ mpg)
Will someone please explain why driving at lugnut height burns less fuel?
iRad time |
9/25/2005 07:05:00 PM
2 Emissions:
I don't quite comprehend. Is mpg the fuel litreage? Is the lugnut height the top one?
I think Fuelishness applies to me.
But I'll take you up on that peanut offer though. But, can you make it macademia? And encase it in dark chocolate? And maybe turn it into fudge rather than a solid block of chocolate? And then maybe add ice-cream?
Sorry. Mpg is ... hmm. how about kpl? And lugnut height is a slight exaggeration, reference to the lower driver's perspective in the little car. I look out the window and don't see other drivers eye to eye; more like eye-to-lugnut.
How about tomfuelery?
I'll work on getting the macadamia fudge ice cream treat to you, though you might want to provide the ice cream yourself. Even with extra bubble-wrap it might -- you know. Melt. Or something.
Post a Comment
<< Home