"Otto Skorzeny" > wrote in message
...
>
> I bought a 1977 Honda Civic in 1985 for $500. I was in college at the
> time and driving a 1968 Camaro. My Camaro got about 11mpg. Of course
> my lead foot didn't do anything to conserve fuel.
>
> The Civic was in perfect shape except for a minor tune up and new
> brake pads. All that cost me less than $25. It got 35mpg. That was
> great! I still say it was one of the best cars I've ever owned. I'd
> like to have one today but you never see those models anymore. I liked
> the primitive nature of the car.
>
> I'll try to think of a good economy car of more recent vintage. The
> probelem is, all the Jap cars of the '70s got bigger and more
> luxurious in the 80s and 90s. The fuel mileage went down into the low
> to mid 20s.
>
> My girlfriend's 1991 Toyota Camry gets about 23mpg on the highway. My
> 1956 Cadillac Coupe de Ville gets 18mpg on the highway. Believe me,
> the 5 mile per gallon difference is well worth the trade off on a trip
> to Florida. You cannot get comfortable in those little cars.
>
> Forrest

My 1997 Saturn SW1 wagon averages 34 MPG, and it has been very reliable. I
also had a 1998 Saturn SL1 sedan, with 5 speed manual tranny and manual
steering, and it averaged about 38 MPG, and peaked at 46 MPG on a highway
trip, but it got totaled by my drunk neighbor while it was parked in my
driveway. I'm probably going to buy another used Saturn, as my SW1 has
176,000 miles and has multiple problems. I'll probably get an older model
(1997-2001). I think newer ones (post 2nd Gulf War) succumbed to horsepower
escalation and no longer get as good fuel economy.

My "other car" is a 1989 Toyota 4WD pickup, which still gets about 23 MPG
average. I can't understand why Detroit can't make new cars, trucks, and
SUVs that do even better, unless they really are in cahoots with oil
companies to use up fossil fuels as quickly as possible to boost profits.
Even my big old 1966 Econoline van with a 1961 high compression 6 cylinder
200 CuIn Fairlane engine got over 20 MPG!

Paul