Every now and then, readers write to grumble about new cars and their gas mileage.
The gist is usually something like this:
You wrote that the new 2011 [Make & Model] gets 40 mpg highway? Well, big whoop-de-doo. I always got at least 45 mpg in my 1992 Geo Metro, and it was a whole lot cheaper, so how can you say we're making progress?
The most recent note prompted us to dig up a ranking issued last summer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in which it listed the 10 most fuel-efficient cars it has tested since it began rating gas mileage in 1985. (Note that all numbers have been adjusted to its most recent test procedures.)
The best-rated car today is the 2011 Toyota Prius hybrid, which has a combined rating of 50 mpg (51 mpg city, 48 mpg highway). It came second on the EPA's all-time Top 25 list.
It was edged out by the the first-generation (1999-2006) Honda Insight two-seat hybrid, with combined rating of 53 miles per gallon (49 city, 61 highway), about 6 percent better than today's Prius. The remaining eight cars in the Top 10 include no fewer than six from previous decades (and only two hybrids):
So why are so few of today's cars in the EPA's Top 10? Four answers: Weight, power, safety, and features--all of which have risen substantially since the days of the Geo Metro.
Weight: Today's 2011 Honda CR-Z, a two-seat hybrid sports car that is the spiritual successor to the 1983-1991 Honda Civic CR-X, weighs 2,670 pounds with a six-speed manual. The CR-X was more than 700 pounds lighter.
The weight is due to far stronger structures, for safety reasons, and a plethora of new equipment not offered in earlier cars.
Power: The CR-X of the 1980s featured a 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine that generated 91 horsepower, an underwhelming rating today. Compare that to the turbocharged 1.4-liter engine used in the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco compact, rated at 138 horsepower.
The more power you pull out of an engine, the lower the fuel economy (more or less).
Safety: That Geo Metro had no airbags at all, with automated shoulder belts providing its only occupant protection.
By contrast, the 2011 Ford Fiesta subcompact comes with seven airbags, and the 2011 Cruze has no fewer than 10--not to mention vastly stronger structures to withstand new, much tougher NHTSA crash tests.
Features: Today's subcompacts offer features only offered on full-size luxury sedans two decades ago (or not envisioned at all back then): cruise control; air conditioning; power windows, locks, and mirrors; multi-speaker AM/FM/CD stereo systems with satellite radio; and many, many more.
Bottom Line: There's no way a car like the 1990 Geo Metro could be sold new today. It wouldn't pass modern crash-safety tests, nor meet more stringent tailpipe emissions standards, and its performance would be considered far too slow and unacceptably noisy. Then there's the Spartan interior.
In short, we've traded some of our gas mileage for nicer, safer, faster, more pleasant cars.
Would you actually buy a new 1990 Geo Metro? We don't think so.
[Kicking Tires via USA Today]
Have an opinion?
Scott Posted: 12/8/2010 5:19pm PST
gerryjarcia Posted: 12/8/2010 6:01pm PST
Americans will one day have to face the reality that cars are meant to get you from point a to point b, and doing that with the most fuel efficient means possible will become priority as gas continues to climb.
I think what is so impressive about the Geo Metro is that it was a cheap car to begin with (and I mean that in both senses of the word). The Prius priced at the middle of the market and is very fuel efficient. The Metro was priced at the bottom of the market and very fuel efficient. You got to love that.
Did I miss it, or was the lack of AC in older vehicles not mentioned?
Looking at some data recently, in 1975, average 0-60 was 14 seconds. Meaning some cars were 20 seconds. Now the average is 9 seconds. I think most of use have forgotten what that was like.
TomT Posted: 12/9/2010 3:38am PST
You need to do more research! My 2000 Chevy Metro (3 cylinder, 5 speed, XFI cam)does have airbags. It also has a 33 month average of 46.01 mpg. The newer "fuel-efficient" cars are all gas hogs! :-)
dfix9@yahoo.com, 7-06-11.
Daniel Santhany Posted: 12/9/2010 4:58am PST
Would anyone rather be in a brand new 54 olds, safer, stronger, then a new minivan, and the 54 olds almost a 1000lbs lighter then a minivan, and mpg not much differet??? We have digressed to a point of weakness. Most of us over 40 spent a great deal of time in one of those so called dinasours, and lived to tell about it. How much have we given up in the name of safety compaired to the cost in vehicle price and fuel economy. I think maybe we have nebt ttoo far in the wrong direction.
TomT Posted: 12/9/2010 6:21am PST
Also, the EPA fuel ratings can be confusing because they don't distinguish between the 2 door coupe and 4 door sedan. (Mine is a 2 door coupe).
A vehicle with a documented 46 mpg (33 month average) should be on the list, wouldn't you think??
Tom Posted: 12/9/2010 6:29am PST
TomT Posted: 12/9/2010 7:30am PST
2 door coupe hatchback or 4 door sedan,
1.0 liter 3 cylinder or 1.3 liter 4 cylinder, and
5 speed manual or 3 speed automatic.
Remember as well, the 4 door sedan weighs approx. 100 lb. more than the 2 door coupe hatchback.
So with 8 possible combinations, the EPA lists just 3, and to add to the confusion, the pictures of the models shown are just the coupe.
AOL auto also has information on their website, it gives a 2 door coupe with 3 cylinder and 5 speed a fuel economy of 39/46 mpg.
It is pretty clear. For the 1 liter engine 2000 Chevy Metro the original window sticker showed 39/46, the new (adjusted numbers) are 32/41. These are the numbers comparable with the above article.
TomT Posted: 12/9/2010 9:56am PST
"2010 Honda Insight vs. 2010 Toyota Prius, 1998 Chevy Metro - Comparison Tests" - Car and Driver
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/09q3/2010_honda_insight_vs._2010_toyota_prius_1998_chevy_metro-comparison_tests
TomT Posted: 12/9/2010 10:53am PST
http://www.greencarreports.com/specifications/geo_metro_1997_2dr-hb
It lists Gas Mileage = 44 mpg City/49 mpg Hwy for the 1997 Metro 2 door hatchback 3 cylinder 1.0 liter 5 speed.
That's essentially the same car as my 2000 Metro 2 door hatchback 3 cylinder 1.0 liter 5 speed.
My 2000 Metro has achieved an average 46 mpg since I purchased it about 33 months ago.
tdier Posted: 12/14/2010 6:05am PST
Dennison, Ohio Posted: 12/22/2010 4:22am PST
The classic battle between the Frugal Eccentric and the Green Elitist.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!