It's an easy answer: weight. New cars have been increasing in weight at a rapid pace since the 1980's because of increasing demand for safety, electronics, new features, etc. For example: my 1988 Volkswagen Golf GTI weighed in at 2250 pounds, now a 2008 GTI is 1000 pounds more. You can't add thousands of pounds and not expect mileage to fall, new efficient engine or not. Thats the basic reason.

The Smart car is a case of a car actually being underpowered. Since you frequently have to apply the throttle liberally in traffic the mileage isn't as great as it could be with a slightly more powerful, yet less taxed engine. Keep in mind though that goverment fuel mileage ratings changed across the board for 2008 so all cars seem less efficient now by the numbers.

The Smart is also not the most aerodynamic car ever designed. It's an urban golf cart designed to need only half a normal parking space, not a car designed to cut through the air at highway speeds. For that, look at the Honda Insight with its covered wheel wells and boat tail rear end. A coefficient of drag of 0.19 allows it to get over 60 mpg on the highway (but all the credit went to its hybrid power system).

New cars don't seem less efficient to me. The changed fuel mileage ratings made the ratings actually more accurate and more representative of what the operator would actually achieve in average real world driving conditions.

There are more standards that have to be met. New cars need airbags, side impact beams and the like. New cars also need to meet strict emissions standards; which requires electronic engine controls and such. Most new car buyers demand air conditioning, a cd player, power windows and locks, and a multitude of comfort and convience features. All of these things add complexity and weight. If you got into an accident in a Sprint/Metro, it is a good possibility that you would not survive. The Smart is much safer (by clown car standards). But as mentioned before the extra safety and comfort add weight which costs fuel economy.

Well I wouldn't write off the sender's initial comment. In 1964 I used to take a '60 Rambler to college. 6 of us with suitcases would be the transport... NO one too small. Got 30 MPG then. 6 cyl, standard, overdrive. OK I'll give the extra stuff on the car 5 mpg. So I stand with IngridAC to say why can't thye get 35 mpg? I think a bit more of political economics is involved in this also.

You really think cars are deliberately designed to get low mileage? I disagree. The car manufacturers are under a lot of government pressure to raise MPG, both here and in europe. They would do anything to get an extra 5MPG. Plus an increase in sales.

It would take a global conspiracy to do that, and not one manufacturer to break the code? not possible, someone would blab so they could get an increase in business.

Weight is a factor, as others have mentioned, as newer cars have crash protection and airbag systems that your parents didn't have, however the truth is that the technology does exist. The Smart is a poor example because it is underpowered...my 2005 Corolla got 38 mpg legitimately.

The technologies I'm alluding to are hybrids and the use of ultralightweight materials. Hybrids are becoming common, but they do cost more, and ultralightweight materials are currently too expensive for all but the exotic cars. There is very little extra that can be squeezed out of gas engines.

In short, the technology exists but not affordably to the average buyer.

I don' know who's billed the Smart car as a miracle of fuel mileage. It's selling point is it's size and they have been around for years in Europe selling with that angle. I think many Americans assume that because they don't see ultra efficient cars for sale here it must be a conspiracy. There's many fuel efficient cars sold in Europe that achieve very high gas mileage, but they usually never saw the light of day here because they DON'T SELL WELL here. Micro turbo Diesel cars leave the U.S. public scratching their heads. At least in the past anyway.

As for the folks here who don't feel the weight issue is enough to justify current mileage, you're right. There's also the issue of engine output. Today's cars put out massive amounts of power, and efficient or not, when you call on 260hp hp in your Accord or 400 hp in your BMW the gas starts getting sucked down quick.

One last point, I think sometimes people have an overly rosy memory of the gas mileage cars achieved in the 1960's. I think sometimes people forget that 6-9 MPG was common in a lot V8 powered cars. There were efficient cars, but 30mpg was quite an achievement back then.

I think sometimes people have an overly rosy memory of the gas mileage cars achieved in the 1960's. I think sometimes people forget that 6-9 MPG was common in a lot V8 powered cars. There were efficient cars, but 30mpg was quite an achievement back then.

I have a vague recollection of VW boasting about the Beetle getting 27 mpg back then. Anyone recall the correct figure? Goshdurnit, it was an outrage to pay 33 cents for premium at the marina... you could get it for 25 up on the 'pike. Oops, sorry, time for my nap.

The early 36 hp engine-32.2mpg,
40 hp-30.4,
50+ hp-26.7 to 27.7 mpg.A full tank for $2.50 back then.

I personally hate new cars and certainly would never buy a Prius or any other hippie roller skate that people are being forced into buying due to high gas prices.
1960 Falcons and Comets get very good mileage and still have looks.They are also made of metal.
I dont think fuel economy should be the issue,I think gas prices are the problem.
There is no need for fuel to be almost 4 bucks a gallon.
We have plenty of gas,this is fact,but all the hippie tree huggers are pushing as hard as they can for these toy cars and alternative energy vehicles.Its all an ego trip,so they can feel they are "making a difference".
Unfortunatley it is a difference for the worse.
these feel good hippie types are very hypocritical though,Overpopulation is a huge problem which is never addressed as it isnt politically correct,yet scientists have pointed out repeatedly how insanely our population has exploded since the late 50's.
Think about it folks,do we really want to live like the red chinese,no room to park,everywhere you look its crowded,no privacy?
What about the destructive impact all these extra children are having on the enviroment?
Less people on the earth = less people on the road=less traffic jams,less fuel consumption,less garbage in the landfill and a higher quality of life.
but people will not learn.
To me a car isnt just a device to haul me from one place to another,but rather a thing of beauty.something that is fun and enjoyable to drive,we used to love our cars.
It disgusts me to no end that a very small but vocal segment of society thinks they have the right to instigate moronic laws regulating what type of vehicle and fuels I am allowed to use.
This Global Warming scare is a crock,it is psuedo science cooked up by Al Gore to make money.(carbon credits,yeah right!)
It has been proven that global warming is cyclical.All the nonsense in Gores scare manual has been debunked with cold hard facts.
Our planet has been through an Ice age long before the advent of mans industrialization,yet there are uneducated throngs of people scared out of thier (limited) wits buying into all this carbon credit b.s. and running around like mad hens trying to force Cfl's and wind up toy cars on us all!
The mass majority of people dont want toy hippie mobiles.thats why Mustangs and Vettes and trucks still exist and account for the MAJORITY of vehicle sales.
So fuel PRICE should be the issue,NOT Miles per gallon.

I think 40 mpg is not rocket science, the problem is gas being as cheap as it was made such a vehicle undesirable, and therefore not marketable. If gas prices continue to rise I am sure you will see 40MPG cars in the future, its just may take a couple years for these cars to get to market.

It strikes me as funny that people act as though they have a right to cheap fuel. Cheap fuel has given us freedom that our founding fathers never even pondered, and now that it isn't so cheap, some of us are acting like spoiled children.

but it is still cheap in the usa! we pay 3 times as much in the uk!so enjoy your cars while you can,and will somebody send me a tankfull of unleaded please?,because its just cost me over £50 to fill my car up!thats about $100!! i wish i lived in the usa.

I'm a treehuggin' hippy from way back and enjoy my "hippiemobile" a dependable 2000 Saturn wagon that gets 30 + mpg.

Though I disagree with some points of your rant I do agree human overpopulation is a very serious problem and one few want to even think about.. I in fact made a conscious decision years ago not to have kids and the way things are going now I'm glad I made that call..

Since its now out there again - it is not entirely on topic, but I just must say something about it (can't resist). The question of how high the human population of the globe can be does not have an easy answer b/c it is tied directly to how those people live. Globally we are past 6 billion and climbing. The earth will not support 6 billion who live like those in wealthy Industrialized nations - least of all like those in the US. But the earth can support many many more than 6 billion with less resource hungry living arrangements. That doesn't mean being poor and miserable. It just means less wasteful and more sensible.

Most have now heard of the "carbon footprint" - but check out the "ecological footprint" (I won't annoy with any links - just Google it if you want to know). Its basically about the amount of resources required per capita. Ours dwarfs everything else.

In light of that calling for population control sort of comes down to saying that we want to continue to hog resources - its our way or the highway. In simple terms its not entirely different from your neighbor claiming that no one else in the neighborhood should be allowed to water their lawn b/c that will mean that he can't continue to water at will - whether wasteful or not.

Randy,
Isn't this natural selection? Within a few generations, conscientious folks like yourself will be extinct, leaving only large clans needing SUV's and mini-vans to get around. Don't worry about fuel.. the price of gas and the free market system will resolve the issue within a decade. I wouldn't mind driving a little plastic car around... I just refuse to do it while there are still monster SUV's on the road! More weight = more safety.

Can I be blunt. You are and IDIOT. Have you ever heard of supply and demand? The refineries in this country are running at full capacity now. THERE IS NO MORE GAS TO BE HAD. Blame China and India not the "treehuggers". Ask the oil companies WHY they don't spend record profits on more capacity. Ask the folks in the middle east why they have Mercedes junkyards in the desert with cars who only need an alternator. Don't get me wrong. I would love to blast around in my 67 Z28, and would if I still had it. But a NEW Corvette that gets 26MPG highway wouldn't be bad either. I know it is faster AND safer. I would bet you drive ALONE in your 4 wheel drive pickup truck everywhere. I am done. YOU are hopeless.

To say nothing about all the financial disincentives the oil companies have to drop oil prices. An oil refinery blows up, prices go up per barrel of oil do to reduced ability to process supply. What incentive does the oil company have to fix it? Oil prices go down if they fix it! Less profit, and they have to pay for the costly repairs. And what about the lack of accountability the gas companies have to gas prices? Oil prices go up, they raise gas prices according to speculation on a weekly basis rather than according to a fair market value.

I agree with the others, it's simply a trade off between mileage, performance, emissions, style, safety, and cost. You may be able to find some of them in the same car, but not all of them. As long as we have cheap fuel, mileage will not be a priority.