What comes out of the exhaust, even at the same mileage, is a lot less dirty now than it used to be.

I remember seeing the smog that would sometimes hang over LA in the 1960s. Both controlled emissions and better fuel efficiency have improved the air quality.

When fuel injection became popular in the late 1980's fuel economy increased significantly. Since then all the extra compexity has only improved fuel econmy marginally. The extra complexity only adds expense to maintenance and planed obsolescence.

Americans like large, comfortable vehicles. Of course they buy four door pick up trucks and SUV s, large, comfortable sedans were taken away in the name of fuel economy. CAFE is a disaster and has actually had a reverse impact than was intended.

Government regulations on the automotive industry have produced only one major benefit over the last half century… improved safety. There are hundreds of KZfaq videos depicting crashes that would most certainly have proved fatal for the occupants not that many years ago, and where only minor injuries are inflicted today. Great video as usual, HCG. 👍👍👍

I daily drive a 1973 Ford Pinto. Even with it being a station wagon with the larger 2.0L engine, along with a low gear that makes the car crank 3400 rpm going down the highway, that car never fails to get between 26-28 mpg. The manual transmission helps with in town mileage, and the light nature of the car makes the highway mileage nice and manageable. I didn't even see an increase in highway mileage when I swapped out the automatic for the manual.

There used to be the Mobil Economy Run. Some entrants got over 50 mpg. Some tricks like running the engine at higher temperature, using thinner oils, fine adjustment of the carburetor, and keeping the engine at its most efficient rpm. But in the end, there is only so much energy on a volume of petroleum, and a mechanical limit to how much of it you can recover. And a limit to how conservative car owners are willing to be.

Here in the UK, when I started driving in the mid 1970s my car was a five seat saloon and managed low to mid 20mpg. I now have a seven seat vehicle running on petrol (gas) with no hybrid system and I'm averaging 55mpg with a best ever of 68mpg. I was convinced that the fuel computer was lying until I measured the distance travelled and the amount of fuel used - nope, it was pretty much bang on. Not only that, but this seven seater is one of the cheapest new cars available in the UK and weighs just 1200kg, a lot less than the most "smaller" cars. It gets these consumption figures by being relatively light weight and having a 1 litre turbocharged three cylinder engine, but it still has air con, reversing camera, cruise control, heated seats, etc, although it leaves out power adjustable everything and a host of other stuff I frankly don't want. It still manages 110mph and has 110bhp which is more than adequate for what is most definitely not a sports car. It's a Dacia Jogger, which is not a sexy brand, but frankly, it's the best car I've ever had in terms of usefulness and its very long legged cruising ability. And so what if the build quality is merely good rather than outstanding - most cars get scrapped at around ten years old so it doesn't matter. I have another car, and that weighs just 650kg and manages just 45mpg, but that's an Austin Healey and it was built in 1958 so I think it does quite well.

You're not nuts, I have been thinking the same thing for the past 40 years starting with cars like American Bantam, Willy's Americar, Crosley,, and Nash Ramblers and foreign cars which were high mileage cars. I remember reading ads for cars as Corvairs, Falcons, Comets, Valiants and even some full sized sedans with 6 cylinders and overdrive getting at least 30 MPG back in the 60''s so I am amazed in this day and age some gas engine non hybrid economy cars still barely get 30 MPG and the very few in the 40's, and the diesel cars have been outlawed that got 50-60 MPG. I believe cars should be getting much more miles per gallon today.

Ideas so great, they have to be mandatory.

Mileage has improved when you consider the ratio of power to fuel economy.

We're from the government, and we're here to help.

Mileage is better when you consider that the Pinto shown was a rough riding penalty box in order to get the mileage. My 23 Tiguan fully loaded gets 30 plus at highway speeds and is quiet, comfortable, and quick. To get that in the seventies meant 10 to 13 mpg.

For fun perhaps you could watch Thunderhead289's completion of hot Rod Power Tour a couple of years ago ,where he used a lawn mover carb on a 302cu powered Ford Maverick averaging over 50 miles to the gallon. Countries outside of the US ,like NZ ,Aus and Japan ,often have lower highway top speeds such as 60mph ,meaning less fuel burnt over a given distance. Robot Cantina's use of a Supercharged inter-cooled Diesel powered Honda Insight shows experimentation of science to get speed and fuel advantage over modern cars.

Early 80s cadillacs weren't start stop systems. They were early cylinder deactivation.

For one thing, In Brazil, when the fuel crisis hit, the population really wanted smaller vehicles (We never had the boats that USA Had, only the "midsized" Galaxie 500, Simca Chambord, GM Opala, GM Omega, and the Dodge Dart were the biggest cars we ever got If I'm not mistaking) So, with the crisis, came the Ethanol fuel, and cars became smaller. NOW With the pressure of SUV's we are finally (badly I'd say) moving to SUVs instead of sedans and hatches, which is a shame. But I agree, 40 years ago a car could make 8KM/L and nowdays cars barely make more than 11km/l in the city. At highway, its slightly better, the cars of the 80's made around 13kml, now cars can make 19kml, its better, but at city, where it matters most, nothing changed at all. And add that Flex Fuel consumes more than plain Gasoline or Alchohol engines, and add useless tech to todays cars (apart from the very good safety, A/C and Power Steering) the cars of today are really more of the same... Cheers!

My 1990 F150 is a perfect example L6 300 gets 22mpg city and Hwy. A new F150 gets 15-18mpg Hwy. Nevermind that in the 80s an average car was getting low 30s.

Air Fuel ratios have not changed for gasoline. You need that perfect mix of fuel to create the energy needed for motion. It is basic math and we looked at it in Auto Shop back in the 70s each gallon of fuel can only make this amount of energy, if you need this much energy to move 4000lb car, but a 3000lb car will only need this much energy. People are looking at cars as if they are perpetual motion machines. Basic, are weight and resistance and how much energy is need to over come that.

When discussing this issue I think of a quote from Scotty on the original Star Trek, "you can't change the laws of physics ". It takes a certain amount of energy to move a vehicle down the road, and gasoline has a certain amount of energy in it. While things have been tweaked around the edges, fuel injection , aerodynamics, gearing ,etc , the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline has not changed.

I remember my dad rejeting a carburetor and retiming a 4 door,4 barrel 383 cornet and it getting 26 mpg with the air on in 1980. It would still do 115mph.

I came home from the hospital in 1962 in a 1960 Mini . 10 inch tires 10 feet long 850CC engine. A consistent 45 MPG. Part of the problem is the EPA itself. Their economy/wheelbase matrix computations encourages large vehicles. In essence as the footprint goes up the mileage requirements go down. A new mini pickup like the 70s-80s Ford Courier /Chevy LUV/Toyota HiLux-SR5/Mazda/Nissan Hardbody would have to get around 45 MPG in todays environment. That's why you cant buy a basic 70s style mini truck. Even the Ford Maverick does not really match straight up to a Courier/LUV of old days.

I used to drive a 77 Malibu with a 305 4 barrel. I could get 23 miles highway in that thing.

I totally agree with you. New cars do not get any better economy than the old ones. The laws of thermodynamics do not allow it. Law makers seem to think their laws override the laws of thermodynamics, but they are wrong.

I had a CJ5 with the Hurricane 4 cylinder. Never really took it on the highway, but for general around town, it had to be the most economical thing I ever owned. And those engines really weren't the most efficient because they had the exhaust valve in the block.

Anyone remember Smoky Yunicks hot vapor fueled Fiero? Close to 100 mpg

I drive a hybrid and really like it as a city car. I am a hard core enthusiast and like the challenge of going fast or getting better fuel economy. The big things about getting better mpg are better thermal efficiency, reducing friction and better aero. Just taking two out of the three will increase mileage. The current limitation is the available fuel. Unless you run diesel, you have to figure out how to keep your engine from detonating. As an aside, one of the best old school boats that got well into the 20 mpg range was the 60s era Oldsmobile Turnpike Cruiser. 400ci big block ( or was it a 425ci ), 2 barrel carb, special cam and 2.56 gears with a Turbo 400 transmission, it had a more than adequate 0-60 time and could cruise at high speeds with no problems at all

I remember a fuel saving challenge in the early nineties that took place in Hungary, where Suzuki owners covered a long distance, partly on motorway, between Budapest and either the Lake of Balaton or somewhere near the Austrian border. As I remember, the winner averaged 3.3L per 100km. That’s 86 imperial and 72 US mpg. I’ve averaged incredible figures even in my supercharged Mercedes by simply driving in a frugal manner, accelerating gently and by avoiding to use the brake as little as possible. However, ‘modern’ emission control devices make driving frugally very difficult and they damage engines, require major repairs and serve nothing more than sodomising us into buying more and more expensive, more and more complex and less and less reliable vehicles.

I had an E250 Super duty for twenty years best milage was close to 18mpg on long trips. Typical day to day mileage, going to jobs, getting materials, etc was probably 13-15. New Transit T250 gets 20mpg on a trip and typical milage is 16-18.

When we get 20+ miles per gallon in the city with a full size truck, we have moved forward a century.

I own a 2003 Mercedes CLK with 2.7 liter diesel engine - 42 MPG. It is a great trouble free car, automatic, airco, airbags and all. No start/stop, no hybrid - just proven simple technology.

The 1950-51 Henry J, with the little Four-banger and three-on-the-tree typically gave 25 MPG in town and 38 MPG Highway at 60 MPH-better than a three passenger Toyota Prius and for $451!!! The Shell Oil Mileage Special, a 1937 Plymouth without fenders and a highly modified engine (MUCH higher than stock compression ratio) delivered a World Record of 203 MPG at an average speed of 37 MPH from NYC to LA in 1939! Hurting Tesla??? At $4 a gallon, a Tesla roadster would have to travel 1900 miles on a $360 charge (normal for 220 miles!!!) to equal a 60 MPG internal combustion engine.

What they should do is make walking/cycling/public transit better so we don’t all have to drive everywhere within 2 miles. Reduce emissions/traffic/road wear and tear, because increasing MPGs is seriously diminishing returns road!

I would gladly go back to a carburetor, points/condenser ignition and zero computers. I like doing my own maintenance and when these simple cars were available, many times a roadside breakdown could be easily and quickly repaired with simple tools and a few parts. I have always carried tools with me. And often spare belts and I always kept a spare points/rotor kit in the glove box. My newest vehicle is a 2010 Chevy express van with the 4.3 V6. My next car won’t be newer than 1985.

I still have my 2005 Chevy Colorado X-TREME. 5 speed manual, 3.5L dual overhead cam, inline 5 cylinder. Extended cab [ geared for “sport”. [ and no Overdrive ]. No power windows, no power locks, no power seats . Dual Airbags only. It does have A/C, and power steering. Fully loaded with all my equipment, I average 21.5 mpg in City [ Jacksonville Florida], and 24.7 Highway, at 65 mph. 🚗🙂

You make a great point but I must add one thing. Hold onto "all that money" you saved on gasoline to pay for the never ending maintenance and repair costs for today's modern engines.

Well, my 1965 Mustang with the small, 170 CID, 6 cylinder engine, and a 3 spd manual, got low to mid 20s on the highway. My 2020 Camry with the 2.5 l 4 cyl gets in the mid 40s on the highway. The Camry 4 cyl produces nearly twice the horsepower than the larger 6 cyl, without resorting to a turbo. The Camry also has more room, even if it isn't as cool looking, and weighs a little more than the Mustang did. I also had a 72 Pinto that would never break 30 mpg, despite having a 4 cyl 2.0 l engine.

I have observed that my EV charges for the equivalent price of electricity (either home or a station) as the gas for my '89 Lincoln. It's crazy.

My 1961 2 door Mercury Comet with a 1968 200 six , 5 speed 1994 Tremec Manual , headers , dual exhaust , electronic ignition, one barrel carb . gets 26 highway at 64 mph . If I put a 90s 302 in it with a t5 i could get 30 mpg , with more power .

Not from the US but you did feature an old car of mine, the Mini. At the time is was small but not dramatically in comparison. I saw one on a car park full of modern cars and it looked like a toy in comparison. The size and weight has gone up dramatically with some of the weight justified but much not. The weird one to save weight is you don't get a spare tyre which is crazy to me. I bought one and it has saved me a number of times. I have to say the mpg is better in my current car compared to a Mini has a engine capacity 250% bigger and nearly 600% more power of a Mini and gets 10-15 mpg more. That said if you drive with a heavy foot it will get less as the power is not free.

The two highest milage cars I ever owned, a '76 VW Rabbit I bought brand new, and a '69 Austin Mini I bought as a grocery getter. Both would give better than 45 miles per gallon on the highway without a problem. The worst was a '72 Buick Electra 225 Limited. It had a 455 and gave 12 to 15 mpg.

Many of those early cars were incapable of reaching highway speeds, so it’s de facto around town. And UK mpg always needs to be adjusted down due to the larger Imperial gallon.

More again. Looking at picture of video it is of a Crossley. I got a chassis running a long time ago, didnt see the finished product, simple period. Knew an old guy that drove one from Oregon to Missouri way back in the late 1940s said it was quite a trip. 40 mpg +. Drove it back to Oregon.

That is a good point. Sadly, parts for late model vehicles often leave much to be desired. When I was still in my teens I had a 1960 MGA roadster. It was interesting learning about positive ground electrics. But it was a fun car!

Hey go to throw this out there. Have thought about it a lot. 1960s economy invovled head design with quech areas and swirl combustion chambers which were killed about 1971 by the epa when everything got open combustion chambers. What would hapoen if you could combine 1970 technology with modern fuel injection and electronic ignition? I can tell a little story about a buddy who put a supercharged v6 in a 1949 ford, no cats, original rearend. 35mpg. Not tuned for mpg, just put together by a quasy shadetree mechanic. Guys we can do better and it is not rocket science.

using quality lubricants that are changed at regular intervals for the vehicle can also help with fuel economy as well as the quality of the fuel. but what do i know

I had an "89 CRX that got mid 40's around town and almost 60 mpg on the highway. And this was the early model with a carb. We could easily have small cars that get that again but the car companies have us convinced that we all need an SUV becasue the margins on a small eco car are so low they don't want to make them. Your choices are a Mirage, a Versa or a Rio (do the even import the Rio anymore?) and all of those are only 35 / 40 mpg. I agree that weight and engine drag make a big difference. I had a "64 chevy truck with a 292ci inline 6, with a 3 speed on the column. It got 18 MPG around town. I now have a "90 F150 with the 300ci inline six and an AOD transmission. It is heavier, has AC and PS. It get 16 mpg. A 25 year difference and it only got worse.

In the UK there were at least two cars in the eighties that were tested (can’t remember which magazine) at over 100mpg (admittedly imp rather than US gallon). Diahatsu charade diesel and Nova 1.5td. If there was a will, it would be very easy to do a lot better than that now.

Well, I got a 1961 Ford Consul 315 with a 1340cc engine - no computer shit in it, got a carburettor and distributor and a full tank lasts for ages. Same with my 1968 Wolseley 18/85 and it has more "room" inside it than new Lexus 300 has, what's more, it has hydrolastic suspension which gives such a smooth ride. We need many more retro vehicles - cut out the crap in new cars, the sensors, computers and power everything - get back to driving when you needed to "listen" to the car, feel the road and know how to keep your car running.

Wedge cylinder designs had much higher thermal efficiency than pent roof designs. Combined with lower weight gave older cars higher millage especially when combined with more gears and direct injection.but they traded wedge designs for overhead cams with higher rpm tunes .to give them higher performance with higher weights.

You forgot to point out that the CAFE standards enabled the government to take credit for something that the industry itself had already accomplished as well as to reinforce in suggestible minds that th best avenue to improvement is through government edict..

I just want cars like I had in the 50s, 60s and 70s

Years ago I bought a 1984 AMC Encore as second beater car, it got 40 MPG on the highway...with the A/C on. I get almost half that now with my new car. I remember a story about a Canadian guy who in the 1930s designed a carburetor that would run a Ford V-8 at almost 200 MPG. It was said that Ford verified this as did two other reputable sources. They said the Toronto stock exchange just about had a stroke and was afraid that because we live in an oil economy they were afraid that the market would crash so they made the guy an offer he couldn't refuse. I don't know how true any of this is but there were news paper articles to that effect back then.

Of course it has. My old 1800 cc Volvo got about 21 mpg. I recently rented a Camry. Got almost 40 mpg. With AC, which the Volvo didn't have.

A friend had a 1990s Ford Fiesta that got 40+ mpg. My 1976 Mustang II regularly was close to 30 mpg.

A Model T (15kW/ 45mph tops) at its best achieved 11L/100km, with little traffic and an open road. My (mild hybrid, diesel) Kia Ceed (100kW/ 130mph tops) under both town and highway driving achieves 4L/100km.

My car has a BMW 2litre turbo diesel 140hp din and in daily mixed urban use in summer returns a fraction overv5O mpg imperial which is 42 mpg US gallons ❤

My 94 civic got way better than a recent one

My 2015 ford fusion 1.5 turbo got 41 mpg on a road trip....my 85 nova got over 48 on the highway... My kia rio could only hit 38.... Who knows?

It's the weight that's the killer, if you put a modern engine in a classic, say an uber efficient modern 3 cylinder in a classic mini you be getting 55-65mpg

40 years ago, I have had a 1300 cc four pot giving me mighty 34 horses, cramped interior, small boot, manual transmission, no nothing, no AC, stay fit window winders, 0 to 60 in half an eternity and all that for about 23 mpg at best. Yes, it was a Beetle. Today, I drive a 1400 cc four pot giving me 100+ horses, roomy interior, big enough boot, continously variable transmission, AC, everything electric, 0 to 60 in half the time of the old Beetle and a top speed 50% higher. Yes, it's a Gen 2 Honda Insight. And the Insight does 47 mpg.

I drive a dinasaur, 2009 grandmarquis. 24mpg average, have gotten close to 30. I play a game going to work, better or worse. Cars I meet, so many people driving 4 door pickups as passenger cars. I can say my old car gets better mpg than most. I remember when a V8 high compression would get 20+ mpg. My dad drove 6 cylinders with 3 speeds, he got over 20. We need true economy cars. No Tesla's. 30+ years ago in the trucking industry our trucks got about 5mpg, not exceptional, but average 80000 pounds. Average passenger car 4000 pounds, one twentieth of that, how come that passenger car didn't get 100mpg? Ok answer that, I can, all about thermodynamics and efficiency. Why don't we do that today? It is all the epas fault kinda. Just like how our electrical costs have skyrocketed. Sensical regulation is something our government does not comprehend. Def. Who wants to pour piss in your fuel tank. A clean burning internal combustion motor doesn't produce anything nature can't clean. A pine tree produces more pollutants than a properly tuned internal combustion motor until you install the anti pollution garbage. Oh well, people in charge make more money than me, supposedly have more education. What do I know?

My 1988 Mercedes 230 E was at around 25mpg and so is my 2018 Subaru Legacy.

Modern cars have tiny engines, No Torq.

If you made a modern Ram pickup the same weight and size of an 83 Ram, it would get AMAZING mileage. (And be shockingly fast)

Between the CAFE standards, safety regulations and emission regulations, today’s cars are really rather remarkable. You can buy an economy car that gets 35-45mpg and is quicker, better handling and better braking than “sports” cars of the 1960s. While it is true that a manufacturer could produce a car that gets much higher mileage than that, how many would actually buy it. Given the state of driving in the USA, in particular, there are a lot of people who need the safety features currently available. And consumers have an expectation of a certain level of comfort and technology that only a few would be willing to sacrifice. That being said, it would be interesting to see what level of fuel consumption one could get if they built a bare bones car that met all current regulations. Then try to sell it.

I have thinking along those lines for a while. Imagine a late 60s full size Cadillac retrofitted with a modern, fuel injected V-8 and an 8 speed transmission! Easy 30 mpg on the highway.

My father was a genius mechanic. Back in the 70's and 80's we had a 1967 El Camino w/283 and 2 bbl carb. After Dad did some mods to the carb, it would consistently get 25+ mpg, even when driven by a 16 yr old with a lead foot Still wish I knew what he did to that Carb

My 89 GMC van with a TBI 350cid would get up to 19 mpg on the highway if I had a feather foot. I’ve never gotten that mileage out of another v8

Milage has improved. The thing is that the average American boycots fuel efficient Diesel cars. And there is that prejudice that small means unsafe. So the bigger the better. Throw out all those bells and whistles. What's not there can't break.

The same people who own the car companies own the oil companies. Therefore improvements have been focused on performance. The average 0-60 time of all cars in 2020 was 7.8 seconds and they can handle better than the race cars of 50 years ago. Did the Model T even reach 60? I highly doubt it.

We can't make the drivers smarter so the cars have to be. The newer cars have mandated safety equipment which adds to their weight. You can't add weight and reasonably expect mpg to improve.

My 1997 Lincoln Continental averaged, according to the computer, 27-29mpg (US) 50% highway 50% city on commute to work. 33mpg at 70 mph on highway. Miss that car. My 1988 Baby Olds with 3.8 was the best. 40 mpg highway and 30 city. It would turn 1650 rpm at 65 mph. That one got stolen. 1999 Windstar liked long trips and fully loaded with family and gear on vacation would get 33-35 mpg highway. My current vehicle, 2003 Pathfinder. I get 23 mpg on highway and don't care anywhere else. Hunting burns lots of fuel. Used Mobil 1 or Castrol synthetic in all my vehicles, engine and transmission. On the Windstar, the transmission oil change lowered highway rpm by 200. My 1996 XL1200S would get 55 mpg on an easy ride or 38 mpg riding hard. My wife at the time was so easy on her throttle on her 1995 XLH1200, she would get 65 mpg on an easy ride, plus she is more aerodynamic.

I own a 2019 4Runner, a 1988 GMC 1500 4wd pickup, and a 1995 corvette. Best hwy gas mileage if I drive normal? The Corvette. Modern vehicles that the avg American likes has the same gas mileage as cars of the 70s/80s

If you want mileage, you need a small, light car with a small, light engine. A 6000 lb. barge with 600 hp is NOT the way to get it. US carmakers have quit making and selling small cars due to the desire for large profits they get on selling trucks and SUV's. It takes the same amount of labor to build a truck as it does a small car, but you can't charge $80,000 for a small car like they are asking for a truck. Short sighted as usual will bite them in the butt AGAIN.

My Grand Marquis and Lincoln Mark VIII get's low to mid 20s and as high as 27 if slowing down in mountain settings. I've gotten as high as 23 mpg in my 83 Capri 5.0 h/o 5 speed but probably averaged 18 on trips. The best my 76 Cobra got was 18 mpg. The best my 73 Ranchero got was 18 mpg. My 65 Galaxie got 12 mpg. My 82 Escort got 30 for best but averaged mid to high 20s. My83 Diesel Ranger got 30mpg when new and 26 when it had over 200k miles. My 2022 Maverick Hybrid is averaging between 35 and 40 mpg and is as fast as my 83 Capri 5.0 h/0 5 speed and Lincoln Mark VIII. My 2020 Bolt cost a third to operate as my Maverick Hybrid. Free some months with my solar panels.

There have been so many inventions patented for fuel mileage

Milage has gotten better. The original EPA numbers have been reduces twice by a substantial amounts. A 45 highway MPG in 1983 would be the low 30's today. . My underpowered '75 Astre (Vega clone) got 24 actual on the highway going 55-60 mph. My modern Accord gets near 40. Much bigger and faster to.

A clear example of this is my land rover defender, it gets on avrage 10lt to the 100km. Yet a modern hilux gets almost the same. But he has alot more safety featuresthan me

I like BIG CARS AND TRUCKS

What’s your point? My parents owned a simple 1,0 ton car with 60hp, no automatic features, no AC and an average fuel consumption of around 7,5 l/100km in the 80s. I own an 1,4 ton car with 136hp, a huge number of safety and comfort features, AC and with 4,6l/100km. I’m my calculation that‘s far less consumption.

People Drive More and getting Fatter, in My opinion.

I like the cars from the early 70's

you are so correct. the "improvements" brought by oem's has been at a snails pace, much too late, at the expense safety, longevity, styling and value. only available today is expensive to buy, operate and maintain total piles of old fashion, out of date junk.

I think it has improved but we are reaching a point that the average gas vehicle is reaching perhaps the limit (within reason) that we can get out of a gas engine. Of course if you did say a 1.0L 3 cylnder engine in a car that weighs 1000 lbs you probably could get 50-60 mpg regularly, but two factors that sort of limit our abilities to achieve higher fuel economy is speed and weight. While engines are becoming more efficient, cars are also becoming heavier (more safety features in some cases make the car heavier) and people like to drive faster and faster it seems (old highway speed used to be 45 and 55 mph in the US, now interstates are upwards of 60-80 mph, and so the faster you drive, the lower your fuel economy is going). So I'd say yes fuel economy has improved, but I'd say numbers for the last 10-15 years have sort of capped out and aren't getting significantly better. I mean they might be able to inch out an extra 1-2 mpg every few years from the same car with a new engine design, but at some point, that's going to flatline and not improve as we would have reached a point of what might be considered "peak" efficiency given the other factors (speed, vehicle weight, enigne size and emissions controls / goverment regulations ,etc).

I attentively listened for a while than I realized that this is a mileage policy discussion about cars and what companies and people should do. There is nothing relating to the cool car in the tease. I wish it would just look at a few aspects of THAT CAR and the improvements over the carburetor, etc. I understand. It would be too short then. A good discussion, through.

5:00 Is that a Chevette?

I still get the 50 - 60 mpg I got 50 years ago. BUT the car is way heavyer and safer, and the engine is way more powerful.

Mileage much improved on highway driving. Not so much in heavy traffic.

My 2001 GMC Sonoma with a 2.2 and a 5 speed manual consintaly gets 22-25 mph.

Best to remember the differences between then and now. They didn't drive as fast then; 50mph was considered to be moving quite fast on the usual 2-lane highways, and speed limits of 40- 45 were common on them. People also accelerated more slowly which is where a lot of fuel savings are. Being that wind resistance doubles at the square of speed, those non-aerodynamic cars had an easier go at it. And leaded fuel gave a bit more energy per gallon than today's unleaded blends. Most of those old cars didn't have A/C, power steering, or high-output alternators wasting engine power and fuel either. Today's testing standards include more rapid acceleration and higher highway speeds, involves stifling emission controls, and includes a few hundred pounds or mandatory safety equipment. "Hypermilers" have shown that with a minimal but aerodynamic specially tuned vehicle it's not that hard to hit 100MPG but you can't really benefit from that in real world driving, especially with the amenities and comforts today's drivers demand. I had a Honda Civic 1200 which if driven gently could do close to 50MPG highway and 35MPG city. As often as not I fueled it using pocket change being quite poor at the time. A hard crash in it would have been something like being inside a beer can somebody was stomping on, but otherwise it was a great subcompact car. Stretched out it would go 85MPH but it wasn't designed for that and the bottom end would go boom if you tried doing it much. The early Ford Festiva's also had great fuel economy and low crash safety. The VW Golf 1.7L diesel (Rabbit in the US) could do similar economy but were slow, and you really needed to re-ring the engine at 70K miles but that was a cheap and easy backyard job for a good DIY mechanic.

My dad drove a Crosly wagon in 1952. .. in high school😂

Wait, who are these regulators, and how do they get to decide what we can and cannot do?

The laws of physics still apply, to move a given mass a given distance at a given speed still requires the same amount of energy as it always did. 🤔👍🏻🇬🇧

There's a difference between a cars economy and an engines thermal efficiency .

Air-cooled VWs can't get 50 mpg

Talk about grey energy. The lifespan of an average europ. or japan. car in the last century was often less than 10 y due to rusting. Today you can hope for 20+ y. Oilchange every 5k km plus some liters here and there, today my BMW 330i goes 25+kkm until next service, plus 1 liter of oil in between. But agreed, cars have become really heavy, but once on the final speed, that doesn't count much on mpg.

This will all change after November.

The short answer is NO. Because so many people have switched over to trucks and SUVs, people are driving vehicles that get the same mileage as cars built in 1972. I forget where I read that, but I know I read it. All of the downsizing of the cars was pointless because the car makers found a loophole in the CAFE standards - that being that trucks didn't need to get as good fuel economy as cars. Therefore, if people want roomy interiors, get them to but trucks and SUVs by adding luxury options that used to be found only in cars! I have often thought, what is wrong with a 1992-1999 Buick LeSabre? It's a car that is roomy enough but was downsized enough to get 30 mpg on the highway. But is that what people are driving now? NO. They are driving Chevy Suburbans and Ford F150s! Even Toyota, which got into the market with small fuel efficient cars, has people driving Sequoias and Tundras. Those things get horrible mileage! Why did we even bother with the CAFE standards? All it did was make it nearly impossible for the Big 3 to continue producing cars for the American market.

Contemporary cars all look the same - most are over-styled and look ridiculous.

Today's cars with EFI & EEC systems are just better emissions wise, cleaner, last longer, more powerful per displacement and are more fuel efficient than older cars. Also no lead gas requires far fewer tuneups and other maintenance. But the smaller cars are heavier than the older bigger cars because of all the extra stuff that most people want. Weight and stop-start driving kills fuel economy.