Looking over this Wikipedia article for the Chevy Sprint, I was amazed to read the 50 MPG figure. This was back in the eighties! Twenty years later, people toss around the 30 MPG rating like it’s the pinnacle of automotive efficiency.
After having taken a trip in a Sprint, it didn’t take long to realize that the three cylinder engine I had heard about wasn’t just a joke. It was a total slouch, had very little in the way of engine-powered features, and I would love to own one. That’s moped mileage, and pretty cheap right off the lot. I’ve heard similar estimates quoted for other cars of that era, such as the CRX.
Why aren’t cars like this still available in the United States?
Its likely that the addition of ‘features’ has played a part in this, especially far more widespread use of air-con.
In the EU, the implementation of higher and higher safety standards has tended to counter the improvements in engine efficiency as the size and weight of cars has increased.
Things such as seats have become more substantial, cars are wider, tyres are wider by maybe as much as a third to one half, all those small electric motors to adjust seats, mirrors, headlight wash wipes etc, it all adds up.
Occasionally you see old cars that have been kept alive, or restored driving around, cars that represented medium 4 door saloons. Its surprising how small they seem nowadays, back when these cars were made, you could have cars going both ways and there would be enough room down the middle to overtake.
Nowadays cars have bloated so much that are not capable of having a bike pass down the centre with oncoming traffic.
You look at, for example, the long running Ford range, you had the small 2 door - Fiesta, then the small family car - the Escort, the medium faily car - the Cortina, and then the large family car - the Granada.
Nowadays, every car has moved up about one and a half grades, so the Fiesta is actually larger than the old Escort, and so on, and the range has dropped from 4 sizes down to 3 sizes, but each representative is larger and heavier than its equivalent in the past.
This costs fuel, and even with injection and engine management, the cars do not get better mileage, its remarkable that they get anything similar, but they do.
The Honda CRX that I had regularly got 45 miles per gallon even at the end of its life. Not too long ago I read an article about it and the bottom line was: it couldn’t meet today’s safety standards. The article said that todays cars must have a 4+ star rating to sell and that one had a 1.5 star rating.
The cost in efficiency comes from the added weight of many of the safety features.
I owned a Ford Cortina that **casdave ** mentioned. Thought I was the only one who had ever heard of it. That was considered a medium sized family car at the time? My family would laugh their asses off at me now if I tried to pass that off as a family car. It actually ran on hamsters and rubber bands if I recall, which would explain the gas milage.
I also had a Toyota Starlet that got me 40-45 MPG on the highway - 25 years ago. So the last time I went to buy a car I expected some sort of vehicle that could get maybe 30+ MPG? Not to be found. Also not to be found is a car with manual windows and AC. Not that many manual transmissions around either. So, its not just the safety features that add to the power usage these days. Our definition of a “car” has completely changed.
The EPA also changed the test this year, so that the MPG that they advertise are closer to real world values. That tended to drop everyone, with special effect on the high-MPG cars.
The accuracy of the test has changed more than once. The highway estimate took a serious ding years ago.
The ratings have been lowered through more legit (but not great) testing for mileage more than once and cars have gotten heavier because of the safety equipment.
As I said in another thread, I had a Sprint. When my dad first got his, I saw 60 mpg in it a couple of times.
I didn’t find it a ‘slouch’. It did have trouble on the long grade on the 14 bast Vasquez Rocks if you let it get below 70. Let it get below 65 and you were looking at 55 by the time you got to the top. But I took mine on a trip from L.A. to Park City, UT and was running 90 a lot of the way. It was pretty good on the flat. A neighbour’s son injured himself playing baseball and her 1970 VW was in the shop. I drove them to St. John’s. She found the Sprint rather sprightly. In the city the Sprint is a peppy little car. Not as quick as a Honda or practically any other car, but it usually outperformed them because of the combination of its nimbleness and my driving style. Overall my philosophy was that high economy was better than high performance.
My dad’s had a/c. (He lived in the desert.) It seemed as if that took about half of the available power, and also reduced the mileage. But other than that and long grades, the Sprint was a lot better car than people give it credit for.
I was with this girl who had a '91 Honda Civic hatchback. We drove it 100 mph from New Orleans to Winston-Salem and it performed wonderfully. And it got great mileage. So when I was looking for a new car I looked at the '99 Civics. They were larger than the ones from the early-'90s. Yesterday I was behind a Civic and I noticed it was larger still. (And compare a BMW MINI to an Mini.) Today’s small cars seem to be the size of mid-sized cars of a couple of decades ago. OTOH, the ‘large family cars’ seem to be about the size of '70s mid-sized ones.
A couple of years ago I saw a first-model Sprint for $500. I should have bought it. Have the engine rebuilt and give it a coat of paint, and have a 50 mpg car. (FWIW, I bought a used Prius from a friend. Yesterday on my 200+ mile r/t commute I got the best mileage in it yet. 48.3 mpg.)
I asked this question when I had to buy a new car a couple years ago, and then again late last year. (Yes, two cars totalled in two years. Fun, fun, fun.) Why can I not buy a car now that gets the kind of mileage I was getting 20 years ago? I looked at the little econo-boxes similar to the Sprints, and ended up getting a Civic because it was much more car for the money with the same or better mileage.
I had a Chevy Sprint back in the early 90s, it was a great car. Very quick and peppy, until you turned the AC on*. It was over 100K miles and still running like a champ when I broke it. OK, so it wasn’t going to win any races, but it was fun to drive and got great mileage.
I got about 40-45 mpg, driving mostly highway with a lead-foot. I knew someone who had a car just like mine but who drove conservatively - she averaged over 50 mpg.
I would agree with Johnny L.A. - you didn’t want to start up a hill at the speed limit. I remember driving through Arizona on the way to L.A. If I started the hills at 80, that little car would crank right up. If I started at 65, semi-trucks were passing me by the time I got to the top. (Oklahoma City to Los Angeles: $27.95 in gas.)
Unfortunately, Chevy mucked the Sprint after the first few years. I bought a Geo Metro after the Sprint, it wasn’t nearly as good a car. Didn’t get quite as good mileage, lots more engine problems, smaller/cheaper interior.
*My SO worked for the woman I mentioned above. One time the SO was driving the boss’s car somewhere with another employee riding along and warned said rider not to touch that button because it was a nitro-injector. When she didn’t believe the warning and pushed the button, the car suddenly jumped and took off. Completely freaked her out. Yes, she had turned off the air conditioner and yes, it made that much difference.
My inlaws still have a Festiva that they use for short trips. Reliable little car and great gas milage. I think it’s funny that you too called it a Fiesta, because my wife had to correct me every time I called the car by the wrong name. Not that it really looked like a party car…
I also had a Sprint. I bought an '85 when I got my license in '96. Paid $300 for the car and another $300 for a new tranny. Did the work myself and had a great car for a highschooler for $600. Despite it’s small size, you could actually fit four people in it rather comfortably. And, if 3 of my friends and I all threw in a buck, we’d have enough gas to cruise around for the weekend.
Mine did have AC, but I was able to get 53 MPG on one tank even with it turned on. With the AC off and in cool enough temps to have the windows up, I had gotten close to 60 MPG on a tank.
But, like others have said, the bad safety rating and emissions did it in.
I had a Geo Metro while in college. It’s the best little car I’ve ever owned, reliable and surprisingly peppy for a 3-cylinder (mine was manual transmission, the automatics really were slouchy though). Even with 4 people in the car, I had no trouble getting up (and over) freeway speeds.
It finally died at 190k miles, and I only put about $1k of maintenance into it over its lifetime.
I drove roundtrip between Seattle and Los Angeles a couple of times, and when measuring my mileage I got 53 mpg In normal city driving I usually got 47 mpg.
The US named Festiva was a car built by Kia in the late 80s, early 90s. I loved mine, and traded it in at 180K miles because it didn’t have AC, and I had a sales job that required me to be in a suit all day. Suits and cars without AC are incompatible with New England summers.
My Festiva got 40+MPG, and in 89 & 90, I drove to Washington DC from Northeast MA for about $12 each way. (gas was about a buck a gallon, tank was 10gal, and I could almost make it on one fill)
Ah, the Festiva… I wrote a post on the Dope about the final demise of my Festiva some years ago. Great little car. The second owner hit a deer a 50 mph, totaled the car, killed the deer, but the occupants were completely unhurt. Nice little car, got great mileage, ran nearly 200,000 miles and would have gone longer if it hadn’t had the accident.
Currently, I’m driving a Toyota Echo that gets 43 mph on the highway. Love that car! However, I should point out that the car has electric nothing, which annoys passengers who have forgotten how to manually open a door. It does have air conditioning, which is feeble, and it does drop the mileage noticeably. I also check and, if necessary, adjust the tire pressure monthly, don’t drive like a maniac, and otherwise do all that boring stuff that in the end also affects your gas mileage.
I had a 1985 Chevy Sprint bought brand new for $6400. I clocked a documented 60.6 mpg on a run between Sacramento and Bakersfield and the day to day mileage was regularly 40-50 depending on how much city driving I did. It had one warranty repair for a cheesy headgasket, the replacement was still there when the car died. I replaced two clutches and drove it into the ground at about 190K miles, at which time it was using oil like a stove. The SO and I went to many SCA tournies in that vehicle, including packing everything necessary for a ten day event in there–it was jam packed, but it held it all. Heck, I carried on a pretty torrid affair in that car and I can attest from intensely personal experience that two tall people can have sex in it pretty easily.
When it turned 50K miles I figured out that it had paid for itself JUST in the difference in gas and tire expenditures–if I’d put those miles onto either the '80 K5 Blazer or the '67 Cougar it would have cost more than $6500 over what I paid to run the Sprint. I loved that little car, it was like freedom to me.
I’ve extolled the virtues of my two Ford Aspires on these boards many time. I totaled the first one when it was a year old; somebody pulled out in front of me as I was going 55 mph. I barely had time to brake and estimate that I was going about 40 at impact. Both airbags deployed, and I got a tiny scratch on my hand.
Went out and bought another Aspire. That one is sitting in my driveway; it’s almost 13 years old, just over 200K miles, and has literally run over two deer and kept on going. Still gets 45+ MPG and occasionally breaks 50.
I owned an SW2. It was an OK car, but gas mileage was one of the few really strong points of the car. Otherwise it was average. The current Saturn lineup is superior in just about every way except gas mileage.
Because you and maybe 3 or 4 others would buy it. Car manufacturers don’t invest millions into a new car if they can still sell the old one. Peoples’ tastes change, and the cars have to change with those tastes.
In normal city driving I usually got 47 mpg.