Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

storm838 t1_j6d6n10 wrote

Because they’ve maintained the same mileage but vastly increased performance and probably vehicle weight. The engines have become more efficient but they’ve offset that by incorporating more performance, options, and safety features. Pretty sure they could build a tin can that would get a 100 mpg at this point.

28

aging_geek t1_j6dbnf2 wrote

and who wants to buy a tin can where there is no coffee/phone holder or help keep your butt warm, comfort adds weight

3

storm838 t1_j6dmz2a wrote

No one, that’s why they’re engineered like I said now.

1

papadjeef t1_j6d9sll wrote

There you go. First person to have the correct answer!

2

Antman013 t1_j6dc5mm wrote

So, you've driven a Tata?

2

Deil_Grist t1_j6dg6f3 wrote

1990 Toyota Tercel checks the boxes too. It felt like I was driving a go cart with windows. Had to kick off the AC to get to highway speed fast enough.

2

Antman013 t1_j6dkpf6 wrote

My first "new" car was an '86 Pontiac Acadian, 2 door. 1.6L inline 4 cyl with an automatic transmission that I quite literally drove like a go-kart. Would regularly take corners at speed by throwing the shift lever into "L", locking up the rear wheels, allowing me to drift into the turn, then back into "D" and nail the gas pedal to the floor.

​

Only ever popped the bead on the rear tires twice. Fortunately, refilling them also reseated the bead.

1

vvubs t1_j6de1zl wrote

A lot of non performance low cc motorcycles get near that mpg. Like the Honda rebel 500 can get 65 I believe, the rebel 300 gets 75. The grom, monkey, and ct/trail can achieve 125mpg.

1