I like high MPG cars too as long as it doesn’t affect the size, performance, price or fun aspect of the vehicle in question. That isn’t possible in today’s market however.
This isn’t an all or nothing proposition. Most people do take MPG in consideration when buying a car. It is usually just number 4 or 5 on the list of priorities. I was given the opportunity a few years ago to pick out any new car on the market I wanted (within reason) completely paid for. I selected a Toyota Rav4 Sport because it fit my needs quite well and had decent gas mileage despite having an impressive 269hp engine in a smallish SUV. I could have gotten a Cadillac Escalade or another behemoth if I wanted to but I have a 60 mile round-trip commute to work and drive 25,000 miles a year total. I still have to pay for my own gas so gas mileage was definitely a consideration.
I am sure most people consider it as one of the many rather minor factors in selecting a vehicle slightly below reliability and above resale value. The bottom line is that a vehicle isn’t any good if it can’t do what you routinely need it to do. I needed one that can haul two adults, two kids and lots of cargo and handle any New England road conditions you can throw at it including deep snow and mud. High safety ratings are a must. Power and fun to drive are not essential but nice to have’s. Show me a high MPG car that can do that and then we will talk. The Volkswagon TDI is the only vehicle I know of that comes close on the American market but it is a diesel and that introduces problems of its own.
My Toyota Echo is a standard gasoline engine and it routinely gets 40+mpg in city driving and has hit 50mpg on the open highway with cruise control.
I will also point out that it is a no-frills model with few electronics to load the engine (the mileage does drop when you use the AC) and we drive pretty conservatively without engaging in gas-wasting bad habits.
So no, you don’t need a hybrid to get 40+mpg but your choices are limited.
We paid $14k for it brand new.
I love that car.
But apparently not enough other Americans did and they no longer sell/make them, at least not in the US.
I think you’ve answered your own question there. I can’t find it now, but I seem to recall reading a piece in Slate a few years ago pointing out that many cars in the '80s were much more fuel efficient than cars today…but that aside from having fewer amenities (no power windows, etc.) these cars had fewer safety features and such poor crash test ratings that they wouldn’t even be marketable today.
This makes a lot of sense: in the North American market, people who buy new cars are already irrational and care less about fuel economy, and this ultimately determines the entire fleet’s fuel economy. I had never looked at the issue this way.
Also on the carb vs EFI discussion as time goes on carbs develop many more issues than EFI. Even if the MPG numbers were identical new I would expect a much different result in 50,000 miles.
Possibly - the Echo does have driver and passenger airbags, but no anti-lock brakes. At least not on my model. Like I said, mine has few extras, some other Echos loaded down with sound systems, power locks, and so forth get lower mileage.
Yeah. My Yaris has something like 9 different airbags in it, antilock brakes, tire inflation sensors and a bunch of other standard features that I’m sure reduce the mpg a little.
First, the VW bug destroyed the “30,000 miles and then scrap it” Detroit was making in the 60’s and 70’s (even into the 80’s, some still had 5 digit odometers. Regional papers would run articles when a “local man patches Detroit junk to 100,000 miles!” articles.
Yes, we love, cheap, efficient, durable cars.
Roller-skates with seats, not so much.
See American (?) Metropolitan - 2 seat, 3 or 4 cylinder, about 1/4 the material of a “real” car - it died.
It took the Japanese, using factories and management techniques supplied by the US, to teach us how to make a car.
I get 9 MPG. But I have hundreds of pounds of tools, a heavy glass rack and up to half ton of glass. And I want to upgrade to a larger van. I like the Nissan MV3500 or a Ford E-350 Extended van. At least I don’t pay for my gas.
Old cars, even ones that are 30 or 40 years old, are still pretty common here in the US and it’s not hard to get them serviced. There’s someone here locally that just happens to have Chevy Corvair parked outside. One thing I was reading about is that Ford specifically prides itself on manufacturing parts for all of its prior models, no matter how old. So you can still get new, OEM spark plugs for a Model T or a factory-spec carburetor for a Falcon.
All of this begs the question of why drive a high MPG vehicle at all? The simplistic answer is environmental but that isn’t true at all on a local or even continental scale. Do you really think that the gas you are saving is going to be stored in an underground vault somewhere for future generations? No, of course not. Any savings you achieve personally will simply drive the price down so that emerging countries like China and India can use them.
That is actually worse for the global environment because they don’t have the same emissions standards that we do in the U.S. or Europe. I was alive in the 70’s. Cars were horrible in general back then but especially bad for emissions. Emerging countries are the same way today except with many times the people. Whatever resources are available will get burned. It is just a matter of economics.
The only practical answer in the U.S. market is to invent a way for people to save money overall while delivering a practical everyday vehicle that matches most consumer’s needs and that has never been done. It is an economic problem. You have to save consumers money by delivering such a vehicle. Everything else is the equivalent of pink ribbons.
“So let’s look at the mileage of that 1992 Geo Metro. According to the old (EPA) formula it should have managed a combined mileage rating of 38 mpg. That’s not far below the 46 mpg of the current Toyota Prius, just like the Mercury-News claims. According to the revised formula, however, that 1990 Metro should actually manage only 33 mpg – 13 below the Prius. That’s not nearly as impressive. In fact, it’s nearly the same rating as many current small cars. Considering that the 1992 Metro features only one airbag and earned a “safety concern” from the federal government even by the standards of sixteen years ago, you should probably think long and hard before paying thousands of dollars for one.”
They are not as cheap - but there are many small cars now that match or exceed that old Geo’s mileage, and are much safer, have many more amenities and probably are more reliable as well.
It’s also getting tiresome to hear generic rants about SUVs as though good mileage and SUV are exclusive. I recently traded in a Ford Escape hybrid that averaged around 33-35 mpg, and its (non-hybrid) replacement is almost as good on the highway and gets low to mid 20s mpg in town.
Bingo. I’ll add that Americans tend to be on the taller side of average, especially black and white Americans, and trying to fit 2 car seats into a small economy car and then being able to sit in front of said car seats if you and/or your spouse is over 6’ is a pipe dream.
My wife and I (both over 6’) had to really do a lot of shopping around and test driving to find a car that was both big enough inside that either of us could drive or ride in the front seat, and have a car seat in the back seat. It’s harder than you might think. (we ended up with a 2011 VW Passat SE with the 2.5L I5, FWIW)
I’m sure a lot of people say “Fuck it.” in that situation and get some kind of SUV or Suburban or minivan.
Also, a lot (most?) Americans who buy new cars tend to associate smaller cars with being poor or having less income; I’ve heard some cars described as “right out of college” cars, meaning they’re cheap and small enough for recent grads to afford, but that nobody else actually buys them.
I had my own formula: Divide the number on the trip meter by the amount of gas put into the car. Reset the trip meter. When you top off the tank with six gallons of gas, and the trip meter reads 300 miles, it’s pretty close to 50 mpg.
Someone put an ‘environmental violation’ on my Jeep once, around 2000. By driving the speed limit, I routinely achieved an average of 25 mpg. I admit that driving higher speeds now, I have to be very careful to achieve 20 mpg. The SO is a lead-foot, and only gets around 17 mpg. But I agree that SUVs – especially newer ones than my '99 (which was designed for the 1984 model-year) – get pretty good mileage. For an SUV. Still, averaging in the mid-to-high 20s nowadays isn’t very impressive.
Bwahahahaha!
Air cooled VWs reliable? Sure they are.
I worked at an independent repair shop in 1971. British, Japanese, and Italian cars got a tune up every 10,000 miles. The VWs got a new engine.
Nazi wind suckers are not reliable. What they are is easy to fix.
It’s impossible to duplicate the Sprint because of the weight. A 1988 sprint weighed 1,488 lbs. A 2000 Saturn SL1 weighs 2,332 lbs. A 2013 BMW SMART Fortwo weighs 1800 lbs.
I disagree about your assessment of British cars. You could buy 5 of the same cams for an MG and they would all have different profiles. Their electrical systems were a nightmare and good god, the carburetors :eek: