I got about 45 mpg on my old, manual Honda Civic. No A/C, no power anything, cloth seats.
I still get about 35 mpg on my 1978 Merc 240 Diesel. And it has 330,000 miles on the odometer, which means I’ve not purchased about 3 cars to replace it, in the interim.
Both cars were (and still are) about as bulletproof as anything I’ve ever owned.
I get about 50 mpg on my BMW 1-series diesel when I am in Europe.
The technology for improved mileage is already there, folks. Has been for years.
I disagree. Check out the Volvo S60 diesel. That is a wonderfully large, comfortable car that I’ve routinely clocked 45+ mpg on during trips in Europe.
I’ve owned longbody Merc diesels (300SDLs) that are big enough to haul a piano and a half-dozen dead bodies, that I routinely got 35 mpg on the highway. And that was back in the 1980s.
Quite by accident, I was in the library-and I found a copy of Consumer Reports from 1965. There was an article that compared 4 small cars-Simca 100, Saab 99, VW Beatle, and a Ford Anglia. All of these cars had small 4 cylinder engines, with manual transmissions-and none of them exceeded 26 MPG (highway).
Granted, gasoline was pretty cheap back then, but this kind of mileage is easily achieved today, by large cars.
Engine technology has advanced tremendously-so I wonder if (instead of blowing billions on electric cars), a well designed car (aerodynamic, low weight) with a very efficient engine, is proibably far better than any electric to date. Despite advanced batteries, no electric has the range of a gasoline powered car.
The thing to keep in mind here is that you’re looking at cars from the era of truly cheap gasoline. Most of the anecdotes being shared on this thread are about inexpensive cars from the latter half of the 1970s and 1980s…after the oil crises of the mid 1970s, but before many of the heavier safety and convenience features were being added to even entry-level cars.
In other words, there were probably serious advances in engine efficiency between 1965 and 1977 (and I don’t know to what extent you’re now looking at diminishing returns on further advances in ICE design). And, today, even the “blockier” cars are still far more aerodynamic than cars were in the 1960s and 1970s. As has already been mentioned, “lightweight”, high-mileage cars of the 1970s and 1980s lack the safety features which are now mandated, as well as the convenience features which few U.S. drivers today would be willing to do without.
IIRC, didn’t VW Rabbits get something like 54 mpg highway in the late 70’s?
Add me to the list of the people who can’t believe that with the alloys/ceramics/plastics/fiberglass etc. used today with the computer that runs your car as efficiently as possible under all circcumstances that the fuel efficentcy is not higher. For example, the Scion IQ doesn’t even break 40 mpg.
And probably the only air pollution gear on the thing was a PVC valve. IMHO makers are just now getting back to where they were before all the hoses and attachments were added to unfog the air. In 1975-80 I was driving an old (1959) 9 passenger wagon that got 16 city of Pittsburgh Parkway and all and around 26 or better on Rte 79 and 80. Much better if I could get it at 67mph and keep it there. And that was an 8 banger! (with an aftermarket 5 speed overdrive but still ----- )
**Dude, a 1984 Ferrari would not be able to beat a KIA MINIVAN today.
http://www.insideline.com/ferrari/308/1984/long-term-test-1984-ferrari-308-gtsi-quattrovalvole.html
.
Also, you might have trouble finding any common, modern production car that could not destroy a 1982 Corvette in a 0-60 sprint.
I’ve heard it said that a CRX nowadays would get a 2 star or less safety rating, so even though they COULD bring it back, no car maker wants to be known as the cheapo death trap maker. So we are stuck with bloated “econo” cars that get 30mpg with tons of heavy safety features.
My favourite is the video of the “Magnum P.I.” Ferrari vs. a Toyota Camry.
the test method used to rate fuel economy has changed, you can’t directly compare numbers from anything before 2008 to anything after.
I had a VW rabbit in the late 70’s. It was one of my first cars. At best it got in the lower/mid 30’s highway.
I also knew quite a few people that had rice burners in the mid-70’s. They frequently complained that their mileage was nowhere near what it was rated as getting, hence the inspiration for the OP.
The best mileage I’ve ever gotten on any car I’ve ever drove was a Toyota Prius that I had as a rental. I was able to manage 62mpg with it. But man, that is a weird car, inside and out.
They already exist in abundance.
Ford, VW group (Audi, VW, Skoda), BMW plus many others offer exactly that.
They are “affordable” in European terms. Whether they would still offer the same value across the pond I can’t say.
The point is though, the pressure in Europe has been exerted through fuel prices and safety. This has led to very economical engines and much safer cars that are…in relative terms, much cheaper than an equivalent from 15 years ago. The technology is not confined to small cars either. Twin screw turbos, common rail diesels, stop-start, energy recovery etc. etc.
There is no reason why the same technology wouldn’t work for the USA brands but there needs to be some pressing reason for the manufacturers to change. As yet, that isn’t present.
A small car won’t protect you well when hit by a very large vehicle, because very large vehicles are inherently unsafe. But I guarantee you that a collision between two economy cars will be safer than a collision between two SUVs.
Safety isn’t just about the people inside the car.
How about Citroen? A model like the DS-19 was probably the most aerodynamic/lowest drag coefficient car ever made. In addition, they had rather small displacement engines.
I wonder what such a car would achieve, in terms of highway gas mileage.
Had an '81 diesel Rabbit. Got 50mpg highway routinely, and not much worse in city driving. Top speed of about 80mph, and not much acceleration to speak of - though what power it did develop was available over a very broad powerband compared to a gasoline 4-banger.
My '09 Fit has slightly worse mileage, but has vastly superior performance - assuming you get the revs up over 4k rpm.
A Smart does just fine against a car twice its weight. Mercedes did an offset crash test with an S500. You can see the some of the footage here: Smart ForTwo Coupe Crash Test @ 5th Gear - Crash Test Dummy - YouTube
Another here: - YouTube but its German. And the Smart bounces onto its side.
Compared to its contemporaries, the DS19 probably was quite aerodynamic (the DS series was made from 1955 through 1975).
However, automakers have learned an awful lot about aerodynamics in the past few decades (now that it’s a valued aspect of auto design), and I would not be at all surprised to learn that the DS is actually no more aerodynamic than many of today’s cars.
According to Automobile drag coefficient - Wikipedia , a '55 Citroen DS 19’s drag coefficient is 0.36. For comparison, a 2005-2007 Honda Accord is 0.30 (for those that don’t know, the larger the number the less aerodynamic). A city bus is in the .40 range.
A 1948-52 Tatra 600 scores a 0.32, so apparently the DS-19 wasn’t some wundercar, aerodynamically even for it’s day.
I used to have one of those. It seemed quicker than my previous car, a Plymouth Duster with the slant-6.
I’d like to know what’s been done to the US version of the Smart to make it so bad. I had an early 600cc petrol version. It had been re-mapped and had high-flow intake and exhaust added. This took the power from 61 bhp to around 75, based on what a similarly modded Smart did on a rolling road. I drove it pretty aggressively around town and got 50 MPG (Imperial) constantly. On a steady run it would get 60mpg.
I’ve currently got a BMW 120d. 175 bhp, around 45 mpg around town, and 65 on a good motorway run.
