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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
My fuel economy is measured in number of happy trips per tank.
Both my 356 and my Figaro achieves a considerable bigger number than “a few” of these, so I usually don’t remember the date or the amount precisely of when I filled one of them up last. I am satisfied, but have no idea really about the MPG.
Doesn’t really answer your question. Just chimed in to tell you about another way of seeing things 🙂
(For commuting daily I just take the bicycle, I live in a big city)
It hurts me a little to see worse than 12L/100km, my truck with the 5.7L Hemi averages around there on my commute, although I’ve gotten as good as 10.5L/100km on a highway run before. My wife’s Rav4 is my main commuter and I average 6.5L-7L/100km which makes up for the truck.
Pulling an 8.5×20′ trailer I was averaging 20L/100km over the course of 500km or so on premium fuel which was pretty awful.
I can’t live with less than 20 city. Whatever I drive is going to average its city rating or worse over the course of its lifetime since I live in DC and the traffic is dystopian. Also, once you hit 20 city or lower the DC government will tax your car purchase to the tune of 7.5%, and it will likely get even higher as they continue to try to force people out of ICE cars and into EVs or onto public transit.
There also just isn’t an excuse for anything that isn’t a sports car or truck to be getting under 20 MPG in this day and age. And honestly, my biggest gripe with my Kona N other than Korean car depreciation is the horrendous fuel economy. I didn’t buy it because I wanted a gas sipper and it’s designed for the most fun possible but at 14,000 miles I’m currently sitting at 20.1 lifetime MPG which is appalling for a turbo 4 cylinder. I’m not convinced that a bigger, naturally aspirated engine would be doing any worse.
I realize it is different eras but the 1994 SHO 5 speed I owned routinely returned mid 20’s economy if not run ragged. 3.0L naturally aspirated V6. My 4.6 V8 powered 1996 Thunderbird could cruise all day at 26 mpg highway at 75 mph. I realize your Kona N has more HP than either, but I’m not convinced these highly stressed turbo engines are the answer. My V6 2005 MDX gets the same fuel mileage as a bigger V8 Chevy Tahoe of the same age. Low stress, low revs.
As far as fuel economy goes they have no actual real world benefits at all. They’re designed to maximize mileage in the absolutely bogus EPA test cycle but in everything but highway driving they’re as bad as NA engines or worse.
However, smaller engines emit less. Fuel economy and emissions aren’t one and the same. A turbo 4 can be chugging gas like an NA engine, but it’s probably emitting slightly less. Whether or not that benefit is worth the compromises is up to interpretation…but I don’t personally think it is.
No argument on any point you make. The EPA tests are not the real world and automakers have learned how to maximize the results. Fuel economy and overall emissions/environmental impact don’t necessarily track.
Fuel economy and emissions are not exactly the same thing, but they almost are.
CO2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel burned(not necessarily the same as fuel consumed), so they’re pretty strongly correlated with MPG.
Hydrocarbon and CO emissions are directly proportional to fuel that isn’t burned. So inversely correlated with engine efficiency.
NOx has nothing to do with fuel necessarily.
When a turbo 4 is under load, under boost, and is chugging fuel like a V8, it is running very rich, doing a poor job of burning all of its fuel, and almost certainly is producing worse hydrocarbon and CO emissions than said V8 would be.
I had no idea that the Kona N was that thirsty. That’s really sad when a little turbo 4 gets noticeably worse mileage than a rip-snortin’ V8 Corvette. C4 and newer Corvettes often average even better than their EPA ratings.
Those had very long legs on the understressed V8 drivetrain. My Thunderbird cruised at around 1500 rpm at 70mph. It was barely off idle and had enough torque to not be constantly downshifting.
One data point: the naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 in my RDX has 19.1 lifetime MPG.
I’ve always tried to pick vehicles with good MPGs. Currently I’m getting mid-20’s in an all-wheel drive compact crossover doing mostly city driving, which is less than I’d like, but I wanted better winter driving and was tired be being blinded by all the full sized trucks and SUVs with their headlights at my eye level in a regular car.
I’d really like my next vehicle to be a hybrid if I can swing it and find one that meets my list of wants.
I can live with fuel economy in the low 20s from my daily driver (V6 Accord) which is what I’m getting now, however that low number is a reason I’m thinking about moving on from it. However the car is excellent in all other regards as regular transportation including it’s legitimate 30ish MPG on highway drives which is why I’m not in a hurry to move on from it.
I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the fuel economy in my ’05 Pontiac GTO. I rarely see it below 20. Mind you, it’s not doing city driving much. I’m at the edges of the city I live in so easy access to open roads. I’ve had it as high as 25mpg in highway miles.
The V6 accord is peak normal car.
I currently get 25 on 93, so my gas bill isn’t cheap, but I could live with something in the high teens, maybe mid-teens in a vehicle that’s fun and runs on regular. Might be nice to get a second vehicle that gets better mileage, but for now I’m happy throwing cash at the pump in exchange for flat-6 noises.
When I drove my XJ to Moab, wheeled for a week, and drove back my calculated MPG was about 16 for the whole trip. So probably that.
For that journey, I’d guess the smiles per mile was pretty high, though!
In Moab yes. On the road, lets just say 4.56 gears, suspension seats and a 20+ year old drivetrain really showed their age (or mine).
I’ve made a personal commitment that every car I buy will have better fuel economy than the one we replace.
Of our two vehicles, the worst is the Pacifica hybrid, which works out to around 7l/100km (34 mpg?) over the course of a year.
So the replacement for the van will have to be better than 34mpg – and at least a PHEV if not full EV.
Other car is electric and will be replaced by electric.
I’m considering putting a bid in on my 4wd work van whenever the new one comes in. It gets 7-9 mpg. But, I don’t commute, and put 3-4k on my personal cars per year, so I don’t really care.
I feel weird having such a visible privilege—but not about to refuse it
I think you hit it on the head at the beginning: it depends. I love driving our Wrangler with tube doors and sans roof and 17mpg around town is fine. Getting 21mpg in our Discovery isn’t. And get 29+ in a GLA45 is smiles for miles.
Top on or off? I haven’t put the top OR doors on my 05 LJ in probably a decade, but it’s never broken 13, usually around 11.
If you are getting 11mpg in an LJ it is not running correctly. My XJs get over 20mpg highway, high teens in town. And even with the top off, an LJ is barely higher drag than an XJ.
My experience is that the Jeep straight six is a fairly efficient engine. David Tracy got 17mpg on a road trip in his j10.
When I was looking to replace my car 8 years ago, mpg was my top concern. Not that I drove a lot, but why not get the best mpg you can? Ended up with a 2014 Corolla. I’ve driven it 60k miles and averaged 32mpg in it.
However, that recently became my wife’s daily driver and I needed something that was going to maybe get 20 miles a week put on it. Budget was a big concern, so mpg was basically not on the list. Through a friend of a family member I ended up with a 95 Dodge Ram with the 5.9L. I’m probably getting 11mpg in it. But since I’m not filling it up but maybe one a month I am tolerating it.
I average about 15mpg between my CTS-V and Raptor because that’s what each of them gets. So I bought a Fiesta ST last week because I make all kinds of sense and totally need 3 cars in addition to 2 motorcycles and an e-scooter.