Uh, yeah, that was my point – cars in the '70s got better MPG but were not as safe as cars available today.
I will also point out that our memories of what out cars got in MPG are often rosy. My dad had a Pontiac with a “incline in line four” engine, and he kept milage records at every fill-up. One time he got 33 MPG. Years later, he’d talk about how that car got 33 MPG, where in reality the Tempest got about 22 MPG. So yes, on one trip, all freeway, etc, the car did get 33.
But it wasn;t a 33mpg car, it was a 22 mpg car.
When I drive death trap cars I do 3 things. Windows down. Door unlocked. Seatbelt not used.
That way when there is a horrible accident I am “thrown clear” and remain safe 
And I get one for the road because I am superstitious.
I hope that smiley means you’re joking…
My mom did that too. I’ve always wondered how many people did that. I’ve never done it.
I not only kept records, I graphed them in Excel - plotting both instantaneous and running average MPG.
Why? Unless you are doing some experiments, it is what it is.
There were several cars in the 70s that got fantastic milage. However, the cars were tiny imports that rusted away fairly quickly. The first imported Honda Civics were known for beginning to rust before they were taken off the ship (salty, sea air did them no favors). They also were not known as being very safe cars by US standards. Bigger, heavier metal from the US could easily crush them in an accident.
I owned a Renault R5 Gordini (LeCar to you) that was an ex-race series car. It was a total blast to drive and the cops never looked at me twice in it. It was a tiny rust bucket that didn’t look like it could possibly go the speeds it did. It got terrific milage.
It was mainly the rust issue that kept a lot of Americans from buying them and ultimately pushed them out of the market. Honda and Toyota survived by “Americanizing” their cars for the market, which made them bigger and heavier, lessening their fuel economy.
Because I’m an Engineer with a degree in Physics. It’s what we do.
You had a sunroof? Luxury!
sriiiiiiiiitch Stop it! This is too silly!
Dad’s had a/c, but we lived in a desert. As for passing… I once tried to pass a bus on the freeway. Its bow wave was too strong for me to get in front of it, until the road turned such that I could get out of the bow wave and pass.
I agree, that must be the main reason car makers don’t sell their most fuel-efficient economy cars in the US.
You want to improve mileage, emissions, and safety, all at once? Make all the cars smaller. That’s all you need to do: Smaller cars are safer, have better mileage, and have lower emissions.
I don’t know Chronos. It makes sense at first glance but the auto makers haven’t done it in the U.S. because there isn’t market for it. SMART cars are remarkably bad in that regard. The first time you have to break up your load and take two of those to make the trip, you would have been better off with a real car in all aspects including environmental. I don’t fault people for their pickup trucks either. Only part of the job of a vehicle is to move people. Some people need to move other things regularly.
I am not very impressed with the utility or environmental aspects of any of the current tiny cars. They don’t fit into most people’s lifestyles in the U.S. very well at all. If everyone wanted to go your suggested route, it would be better just to make everyone take scooters or motorcycles for short trips with designated road lanes for such vehicles but this isn’t Europe and it isn’t going to happen. You will see natural gas powered cars on U.S. streets well before that and those take car of most of the problems associated with gasoline powered vehicles.
I’ll point out the Honda FIT qualifies here and it has tons of room. Reliable, not expensive etc. Sure the Smart car is stupid, but there are quite a few others that fill the job very well. I have heard good things about the new Fiat, even (it has a great TV ad, too).
I’m guessing you were born in the 1990s.
The Smart car isn’t a good example though - Smart started as a project by Swatch to make a fashionable city car. It’s primarily designed as a fashion accessory and not as a practical economy car.
nm
Umm, no, I am over 50.
I should clarify that a larger car that Americans want isn’t only for safety. I realize that a car doesn’t have to be large to be safe, but small cars like the Smart just aren’t going too protect you as well when hit by a very large vehicle than a car of bigger dimensions. Crumple zones are efficient but a six inch zone between a door and a driver is going to offer more protection than one that only has two, designs being similar. I don’t believe that all small cars are death traps, but I do know more crumple zone area means more area to absorb an impact.
However, that by itself might not even be the real issue when it comes too Americans preference for larger vehicles. A mentioned above, our lifestyles tend to favor larger cars. Between my wife and we have six children, so a small car won’t work. We own a Mazda 9 as or primary vehicle. It is large, has great power and it’s reasonably fuel efficient. A smaller car wouldn’t work for us no matter how green wee wanted to be. Before I married her it was just me and my two kids and I owned a Mazda Protege, it was small and very fuel efficient. But it could only hold four and on the road the larger size of the 9 makes us all feel safe and I would bet money if we tangled with a large truck like a Dodge Ram we would be better of in the 9 than in the Protege.
As far as someone pointing out that I said Government mandates safer cars but then said that buyers want safe cars as well, I am not sure how that was taken as a contradiction. Of course buyers want a safe car. The point I was trying to get across is that in automotive design just about everything its a tradeoff. You can mandate higher millage and stricter emissions, but the two work against each other. That isn’t to say that it can’t be technically overcome, but to say one doesn’t affect the other is ignoring technical limitations. Mandating millage requirements is fine, but you can’t expect magic and those mandates cannot exceed what is possible. Not to mention that car companies are selling a product and they have to make what people are going to buy. You can make a car that gets a hundred miles to the gallon, but if there are no buyers what its the point? If consumers have decided that they want larger vehicles and are willing to pay the higher cost off gas, then that is what car companies will make.
I don’t believe that there is some car company gas company conspiracy afoot. If it was possible to currently produce a decent sized vehicle that could get fifty miles a gallon that was affordable it would be on sale right now. At this point in time we just don’t have the ability to do so in a cost effective manner. But that will change. As cost for manufacturing components out of materials like carbon fiber becomes less expensive and technology such as electric motors becomes more mainstream the prices will get to the point that making the majority of a manufacturers fleet high millage vehicles will be feasible, we just aren’t there yet. There was a time not to long ago when computers were large ridiculously pricey and slow. Today fast, small and affordable computers are the norm, because technology and manufacturing processes made it feasible. One day high millage decent sized cars that run on unicorn farts will be too, we just have to figure out how to do it.
I drove a Starlet up until around 1990. It was low priced, a Toyota and got just just barely under 50 miles to a gallon on long highway trips. I never knew it was under powered. No AC or power anything though.