[darkpuppet]

from this article:

Quote:The fuel mileage saga is spelled out in the MPG Super Stars chart. Five 1992-vintage cars outperform the best gasoline-powered offerings from 2007 while a sixth equals them in highway mileage.

...

Fuel Economy Super Stars
[city / hwy - L/100km / mpg]

1992
Geo Metro XFI ('93) 4.4 / 4.1 (64 / 69)
Honda Civic VX 4.9 / 4.3 (57 / 66)
Geo Metro LSI 5.1 / 4.7 (55 / 60)
Suzuki Swift 6.0 / 5.5 (47 / 51)
Ford Festiva 6.7 / 5.6 (42 / 50)
Dodge Colt ('93) 7.4 / 5.9 (38 / 48)
2007
Toyota Yaris 6.9 / 5.9 (41 / 48)
Mini Cooper 7.4 / 5.9 (38 / 48)

....

Under the banner of, "the more things change the more they stay the same," we present the Super Suckers. The worst fuel mileage vehicles on the road have evolved little in the last decade and a half. The Lamborghini Diablo of 1993 and the present day Lamborghini MurciÃÂlago both have V12 power and the same woeful 26.1 city, 16.8 highway (9/14 mpg) performance.

Super Suckers
[city / hwy - L/100km / mpg]

1992
Vector W8 33.6 / 21.4 (8 / 13)
Lamborghini Diablo 26.1 / 16.8 (11 / 17)
Mercedes-Benz 600SEL 21.4 / 15.7 (13 / 18)
2007
Lamborghini MurciÃÂlago ('06) 26.1 / 16.8 (11 / 17)
Bentley Arnage 23.5 / 15.7 (12 / 18)
Bentley Azure 21.4 / 14.7 (13 / 19)

Sure, a lot of it has to do with the public's demand for horsepower and safety which leads to greater engine displacement, and heavier cars.... but still.. interesting to know...

[cornflakes]

but eventually cars won't be powered by gasoline anymore. So mpg will become an obsolete issue.

[Frost__2001]

seems odd that no TDI or Diesels were mentioned in that listing.

[NefCanuck]

Another issue to consider is that back in '92 they were still using those ridculous laboratory tests to get their fuel economy numbers that had near zero relation to real world driving. I'd bet if you ran those cars back then with the revised tests, the numbers would be much worse///

NefCanuck

[NOS2Go4Me]

Yeah, but what about the introduction of ethanol into low and mid-grade gasolines? That lowers economy across the board for all cars concerned, something the guys in 1992 didn't have to worry about.

[dBlast]

3 letters

S......U.......V

Not many SUVs in 1992...

Now there are more SUV models than passenger car models offered by the auto makers.

[D-Dub]

Geo Metro XFI ('93) 4.4 / 4.1 (64 / 69)
Honda Civic VX 4.9 / 4.3 (57 / 66)
Geo Metro LSI 5.1 / 4.7 (55 / 60)
Suzuki Swift 6.0 / 5.5 (47 / 51)
Ford Festiva 6.7 / 5.6 (42 / 50)
Dodge Colt ('93) 7.4 / 5.9 (38 / 48)

All these cars listed above are major death traps, which is why cars weigh more today and hence they need a bigger engines to power them.

[Canadian ST]

Yah my first car was the metro, good on gas but hard to get upto speed. That was one good car considering.

[FocusGuy7476]

what about all the new safety features in todays cars, that makes them heavier than before.

[D-Dub]

FocusGuy7476,Oct 11 2007, 10:13 PM Wrote:what about all the new safety features in todays cars, that makes them heavier than before.
[right][snapback]250786[/snapback][/right]

2 posts up......

[darkpuppet]

D-Dub,Oct 12 2007, 08: Wrote:

FocusGuy7476,Oct 11 2007, 10:13 PM Wrote:what about all the new safety features in todays cars, that makes them heavier than before.
[right][snapback]250786[/snapback][/right]

2 posts up......
[right][snapback]250810[/snapback][/right]

how about ten posts up?

darkpuppet Wrote:Sure, a lot of it has to do with the public's demand for horsepower and safety which leads to greater engine displacement, and heavier cars

[D-Dub]

touche