Gas prices (and diesel prices) aren’t exactly great right now. There is a war on, or a few actually, and that’s doing little to help the situation. That leads me to today’s Autopian Asks—what’s the worst fuel economy you’re willing to put up with?
Of course, this applies strictly to cars that burn fossil fuels. We can argue about how many fathoms per joule you get out of your EV, but it’s just going to confuse things. We’re talkin’ liquids here, baby.
This question is one that is important car enthusiasts and normies alike. If you’re into cars, you’re probably willing to trade off some fuel economy for better performance, or for a vehicle that truly lights up your heart. If you’re a normie, you might see cars as appliances, and you just want the best efficiency possible. Alternatively, you might demand a certain level of luxury or cargo space at the cost of some extra fuel burn.
I grew up during the turmoil of the second Gulf War, albeit in the safe confines of Australia. We saw our gas prices hit new highs, and I was stuck driving a 1992 Ford Falcon. It had no working odometer, so I couldn’t accurately measure its fuel economy. Regardless, that 4.0-liter six sure loved to suck down the dino juice, and I’d estimate it was pulling down around 15 L/100 km around town, or around 15 mpg in your American money.
That formative experience routinely sent me broke. Since then, I’ve owned a wide variety of cars, and I’ve settled on a figure I find comfortable. It’s 10 L/100 km, or about 23 mpg. My 1998 Mercedes E240, 1992 Daihatsu Feroza, and 1992 Mazda Miata all hit about this mark. They were all cool in their own ways, and they justified their fuel use in turn.
I’ve had more efficient cars, of course. My BMW 320D routinely achieves 29 mpg or better. My 1989 Mazda 121 was a star at 36 mpg. That made them more attractive. By contrast, I felt strongly compelled to sell my Volvo 740 Turbo wagon when its fuel economy mysteriously slipped from 19 mpg to 15 mpg over a few months.
My question to you is thus—what’s the worst fuel economy you’re willing to put up with and why? Maybe it’s for performance, maybe it’s for seating, maybe you’re making a trade-off by running big chunky mud tires. Sound off and tell me how much pain you can take at the pump!
Definitely depends on usage. My wife’s car barely sees 8k miles/year, so I have no problem even going lower than her current 18 mpg, and it’s mostly used for the occasional road trip. My car sees a lot more miles though as I have a longer commute and we focus our errands/kids stuff in that, so I wouldn’t want anything less than 40+mpg.
I currently have a PHEV for myself, but I don’t think I could justify the extra cost for her next vehicle unless we were to downsize to 1 car and put all the miles on that one.
Definitely depends on usage. My wife’s car barely sees 8k miles/year, so I have no problem even going lower than her current 18 mpg, and it’s mostly used for the occasional road trip. My car sees a lot more miles though as I have a longer commute and we focus our errands/kids stuff in that, so I wouldn’t want anything less than 40+mpg.
I currently have a PHEV for myself, but I don’t think I could justify the extra cost for her next vehicle unless we were to downsize to 1 car and put all the miles on that one.
What’s baffling to me is when new car reviews come out and say something like “this thing gets great gas mileage: 19 city, 20-something highway”
That was good gas mileage in 1992. It’s shocking any average person would think such a poor number’s still good today, let alone car people who should know better.
To the question: I drive my CRZ irresponsibly and still get 27-30mpg city. If I baby it, I’ve hit upwards of 48mpg highway. If I were buying a new car, I wouldn’t consider anything that did worse than that.
It’s weird to hear that described as good gas mileage. In the 80s we thought 30 was good and some of the econoboxes available at the time were delivering 40. And then came the 90s, and the oughts, and the 10s…CAFE requirements went up but…nothing really changed? The shift to people driving light trucks and other things not governed by the CAFE requirements has made the requirements essentially pointless.
I mean, in the 80s there were diesel econoboxes that got higher 40s or even 50s. Heck, there were pickups that got fuel economy in the 40s!
Newer cars may be more efficient *for how large and powerful and safe they are*, but in terms of straight MPG, the most efficient mass market cars ever sold in the US were built in the 80s and 90s.
In addition to the added weight and added power to move that weight around much more quickly in even the lowliest of modern cars, the EPA has updated their testing procedures periodically since the ’70s. I read somewhere that the 54-mpg mandate that was coming at the time (sometime in the Obama administration, so not the current requirement) was based on the original testing used for the first CAFE requirements in 1978, and would only be 41 mpg using the then-current test.
Emissions controls and safety features do a lot to make vehicles heavier and less efficient. When even a low speed crash is a death sentence and no one cares about NOX emissions, it’s not uncomplicated to manage those fuel efficiency standards.
Even if it’s not outright called good, the fact that you can buy sub-20mpg vehicles in 2024 is ludicrous
What’s baffling to me is when new car reviews come out and say something like “this thing gets great gas mileage: 19 city, 20-something highway”
That was good gas mileage in 1992. It’s shocking any average person would think such a poor number’s still good today, let alone car people who should know better.
To the question: I drive my CRZ irresponsibly and still get 27-30mpg city. If I baby it, I’ve hit upwards of 48mpg highway. If I were buying a new car, I wouldn’t consider anything that did worse than that.
It’s weird to hear that described as good gas mileage. In the 80s we thought 30 was good and some of the econoboxes available at the time were delivering 40. And then came the 90s, and the oughts, and the 10s…CAFE requirements went up but…nothing really changed? The shift to people driving light trucks and other things not governed by the CAFE requirements has made the requirements essentially pointless.
I mean, in the 80s there were diesel econoboxes that got higher 40s or even 50s. Heck, there were pickups that got fuel economy in the 40s!
Newer cars may be more efficient *for how large and powerful and safe they are*, but in terms of straight MPG, the most efficient mass market cars ever sold in the US were built in the 80s and 90s.
In addition to the added weight and added power to move that weight around much more quickly in even the lowliest of modern cars, the EPA has updated their testing procedures periodically since the ’70s. I read somewhere that the 54-mpg mandate that was coming at the time (sometime in the Obama administration, so not the current requirement) was based on the original testing used for the first CAFE requirements in 1978, and would only be 41 mpg using the then-current test.
Emissions controls and safety features do a lot to make vehicles heavier and less efficient. When even a low speed crash is a death sentence and no one cares about NOX emissions, it’s not uncomplicated to manage those fuel efficiency standards.
Even if it’s not outright called good, the fact that you can buy sub-20mpg vehicles in 2024 is ludicrous
Anything under 30mpg for a daily commuter is no bueno for me, and that’s because gas is still cheap in the majority of the US.
Anything under 30mpg for a daily commuter is no bueno for me, and that’s because gas is still cheap in the majority of the US.
My 2014 Sportwagen TDI has skewed this number for me. I usually average 37 mpg on a tank, getting 40+ on the highway and around 35 in town. That said, I wouldn’t want to have a daily that averages under 30mpg. My previous two cars, a GTI and a CC, averaged mid-20s, on premium. Even with diesel being more expensive than gas I’m coming out ahead financially, given how much more expensive premium gas is now. Used to it was 20 cents a gallon more than regular, I’ve seen it marked up 60-80 cents above regular now.
My 2014 Sportwagen TDI has skewed this number for me. I usually average 37 mpg on a tank, getting 40+ on the highway and around 35 in town. That said, I wouldn’t want to have a daily that averages under 30mpg. My previous two cars, a GTI and a CC, averaged mid-20s, on premium. Even with diesel being more expensive than gas I’m coming out ahead financially, given how much more expensive premium gas is now. Used to it was 20 cents a gallon more than regular, I’ve seen it marked up 60-80 cents above regular now.
I’d be okay with mid-20’s IF and only IF I sold my daily (2016 Mazda3 (34mpg)) and my truck (2004 Tacoma (13.5mpg)) and the replacement could do both functions (a la F150 or Maverick).
I’d be okay with mid-20’s IF and only IF I sold my daily (2016 Mazda3 (34mpg)) and my truck (2004 Tacoma (13.5mpg)) and the replacement could do both functions (a la F150 or Maverick).
When I was moving to LA, I thought how cool it would be to have a vintage Mercedes-Benz 450/560SL as a daily driver.
Then I checked the mileage ratings – Oh my!! That put the kibosh to that idea!
So it seems that upper teens in the city and mid-20’s on the highway are about as low as I’m comfortable with on a daily basis.
Having lived in LA with a 90-mile (roundtrip) daily commute, and now owning a 560SL, your comment prompted me to do the math.
I’m currently getting 11-13mpg. I’d be using 8 gallons a day, filling up every third day, and spending $1k a month in gas.
Oof.
Yeah – and if you’re doing a drive to the desert or up to Santa Barbara with no traffic, you’re probably maxing out at around 17 or 18mpg in a 560SL.
That’s city mileage in my CLK350.
(90 mile commute! Are you doing Santa Clarita to Century City/Culver City?)
I doubt an SL can get much better than 12-14.
When I was moving to LA, I thought how cool it would be to have a vintage Mercedes-Benz 450/560SL as a daily driver.
Then I checked the mileage ratings – Oh my!! That put the kibosh to that idea!
So it seems that upper teens in the city and mid-20’s on the highway are about as low as I’m comfortable with on a daily basis.
Having lived in LA with a 90-mile (roundtrip) daily commute, and now owning a 560SL, your comment prompted me to do the math.
I’m currently getting 11-13mpg. I’d be using 8 gallons a day, filling up every third day, and spending $1k a month in gas.
Oof.
Yeah – and if you’re doing a drive to the desert or up to Santa Barbara with no traffic, you’re probably maxing out at around 17 or 18mpg in a 560SL.
That’s city mileage in my CLK350.
(90 mile commute! Are you doing Santa Clarita to Century City/Culver City?)
I doubt an SL can get much better than 12-14.
I’ve been spoiled by my PHEV Volvo.
Anything less than 55 MPG seems wasteful, when I can get that in a 400hp sedan on a bad day.
Most days I’m pulling 150+ MPG.
I’ve been spoiled by my PHEV Volvo.
Anything less than 55 MPG seems wasteful, when I can get that in a 400hp sedan on a bad day.
Most days I’m pulling 150+ MPG.
Anything <20l/100km is perfectly fine.
Anything <20l/100km is perfectly fine.
My prior daily got about 24 mpg combined, and that just seemed a bit wasteful when I was driving a bit over an hour each way to work.
My daily commute is now under 15 minutes, so that’s all electric in my Clarity.
For occasional use (the convertible and the performance car), I have a strong preference for 20 mpg or more combined.
But I do a lot of long distance road travel in my time off. For the car I’m driving a lot, I want to average 35 mpg or more. Fortunately the Clarity performs pretty well while averaging well over 40 mpg combined, frequently at extra-legal highway speeds.
My prior daily got about 24 mpg combined, and that just seemed a bit wasteful when I was driving a bit over an hour each way to work.
My daily commute is now under 15 minutes, so that’s all electric in my Clarity.
For occasional use (the convertible and the performance car), I have a strong preference for 20 mpg or more combined.
But I do a lot of long distance road travel in my time off. For the car I’m driving a lot, I want to average 35 mpg or more. Fortunately the Clarity performs pretty well while averaging well over 40 mpg combined, frequently at extra-legal highway speeds.
I was stuck daily driving a 2000 Suburban for quite a while. 12.5mpg. Never again.
Currently I drive a minivan and an old BMW that both get around 21mpg. More efficient options would cost more than I’d save in fuel. So 21mpg it is.
I was stuck daily driving a 2000 Suburban for quite a while. 12.5mpg. Never again.
Currently I drive a minivan and an old BMW that both get around 21mpg. More efficient options would cost more than I’d save in fuel. So 21mpg it is.
I’d agree with low 20s MPG. That’s pretty much what all of my daily drivers have gotten until my most recent car which gets 32+ on average, and I’m very happy with that.
My old Sequoia gets 15 MPG going downhill with a tailwind but I only drive that when needed.
I’d agree with low 20s MPG. That’s pretty much what all of my daily drivers have gotten until my most recent car which gets 32+ on average, and I’m very happy with that.
My old Sequoia gets 15 MPG going downhill with a tailwind but I only drive that when needed.
My daily driver 2014 Camry Hybrid gets 38-42 mpg consistently. The wife’s older Corolla is driven less and averages about 33. I’m satisfied with these figures. My 2005 MDX only averages an appalling 17 mpg. My old 4.0L Grand Cherokee got that and my last V8 coupe regularly got over 20. The terrible fuel economy is one reason it sits a lot, that and I really don’t enjoy driving it. It serves a purpose with AWD and a big covered cargo area.
The least I would accept on a non hybrid daily anymore is honestly 25 to 30 mpg. Most of my older 4 and 6 cylinder sedans had no problem running in this range. I’m looking at nearly 50 mpg for my next hybrid daily. I will gladly accept poor economy from an occasional use for fun toy.
The least efficient car I owned was a 1978 Ford LTD coupe in high school. The 351W/3 speed combo returned 8 mpg.
That LTD is terrible – My old 88 F250 4×4 with a 351, 3 speed and 4.10 gears got 10-12 mpg.
My daily driver 2014 Camry Hybrid gets 38-42 mpg consistently. The wife’s older Corolla is driven less and averages about 33. I’m satisfied with these figures. My 2005 MDX only averages an appalling 17 mpg. My old 4.0L Grand Cherokee got that and my last V8 coupe regularly got over 20. The terrible fuel economy is one reason it sits a lot, that and I really don’t enjoy driving it. It serves a purpose with AWD and a big covered cargo area.
The least I would accept on a non hybrid daily anymore is honestly 25 to 30 mpg. Most of my older 4 and 6 cylinder sedans had no problem running in this range. I’m looking at nearly 50 mpg for my next hybrid daily. I will gladly accept poor economy from an occasional use for fun toy.
The least efficient car I owned was a 1978 Ford LTD coupe in high school. The 351W/3 speed combo returned 8 mpg.
That LTD is terrible – My old 88 F250 4×4 with a 351, 3 speed and 4.10 gears got 10-12 mpg.
For me it’s less about mpg and more about how often I have to fill up. So if the car has a larger tank, I’ll forgive worse gas mileage, but generally under 20 mpg is unacceptable, but I typically only got 18-19 out of my imported crown Majesta and was fine with that because V8 and it was just too pretty. It also had a big enough tank I could get around 300 miles to the tank so it was fine. When I had an Elise, it drove me nuts because despite getting 26+, it had a tank the size of a dinosaur brain and I had to fill up every 180 miles or so and that was annoying.