It’s good to remember the past because it helps form an understanding of the present. Forty-four years ago – back in 1982 – you could have bought a brand-new Dodge 400 that touted 39 MPG in city driving and 53 on the highway. Far better mileage than anything you can buy today that isn’t a hybrid – and even the hybrids only tout a handful of MPG more than what this ’82 Dodge advertised.
Call it progress – if you have a sense of humor.
How did Dodge do it?
Well, it wasn’t rocket science. It was physics. The ’82 Dodge 400 was basically an upmarket K-Car, which was the car that resuscitated Chrysler. Though categorized as mid-sized by the standards of 1982, the 400 weighed just 2,470 lbs. A 2026 Prius Hybrid weighs 3,097 lbs. Progress, again. Because the 400 was so light, it was extremely fuel efficient. It’s not rocket science. Well, maybe it is – in a way.
Back in the early ’80s, Dodge was able to build light, fuel-efficient cars because at that time the government wasn’t yet as demanding regarding what it likes to style “safe” cars. Meaning, compliant cars. As in, compliant with the various regs and “standard” that have added an estimated 500 lbs. of curb weight to the average new vehicle in the years since the early ’80s. Back then, air bags were not required by federal edict. The air bags themselves weigh next-to-nothing, of course. The weight that comes along for the ride comes in the form of the car’s structure – which must be built around the air bags, to create a Supplemental Restraint System, which is the formal name for air bags. Dashes are much beefier now than they were – and so is the rest of the car.
That includes everything down to the wheels and tires. The ’82 400 and its K-car siblings came standard with 13 or 14 inch wheels and skinny tires that had less rolling resistance than the 17 and 18 inch wheels that are standard on pretty much every new vehicle, including the Prius. It is interesting to note that the Prius loses about 4 MPG when it is shod with its optional 19 inch wheels. With its standard 17 inch wheels, the mileage touted is 53 city, 54 highway. This dips to 49 city, 50 highway with the 19s. Imagine what the mileage might be if the Prius were available with 14s or even 15s. Apparently “rims” matter more than MPGs, even to Prius buyers.
Progress, again.
Being light, the 400 didn’t need a lot of engine, which is another reason why it did not need a lot of gas. The standard 2.2 liter engine was actually larger than the 2.0 liter engines that are common today, with the difference being the 400 didn’t need more than a 2.2 liter engine’s power. Today’s much heavier cars have 2.0 liter engine (and some even smaller; viz, the 1.5 liter engine in the GMC Terrain I have been test driving this week) that need turbos to compensate for their size, which is much too small for the weight of the vehicles they are tasked with lugging around. The turbos allow these otherwise-too-small-for-the-vehicle engine to make more power than is needed to adequately propel the vehicle. Most of these 2.0 (and smaller) turbo-engined fatties can get to 60 MPH in 7-8 seconds or so. That’s quicker than most of the V8-powered muscle cars of the ’70s. The thing is, few of the people driving around today drive their overweight, turbo-powered crossovers like muscle cars, so the power is largely superfluous. The poor gas mileage is the cost.
It took the 400 about 13 seconds to get to 60.
But it also took longer to drain its tank. Which held 13 gallons. Work that out. The Dodge averaged about 46 MPG. That times 13 gives a driving range of about 600 miles. As far as a new Prius can go.
Ah, progress!
The ’26 GMC Terrain I recently test drove touts 28 on the highway and 26 in the city. The Terrain gets about 10 MPG less in city driving than the old 400 got on the highway. The italics are to emphasize that most vehicles (excepting hybrid and electric vehicles) get their best mileage on the highway, because it takes less energy to maintain speed than it does to get up to speed. In stop-and-go city driving, the 400’s mileage is 25 MPG higher than the Terrain’s. A gas-guzzling 28 MPG (best case, on the highway) is all you get out of 1.5 liters when it’s tasked with hauling about 1,000 pounds more (the Terrain’s curb weight is about 3,400 lbs.) than the weight of an ’82 Dodge 400. Even though the ’26 Terrain – like every new vehicle – has the putative advantages of a fuel-injected engine (direct injected, in the case of the Terrain and many other new vehicles) and mileage-enhancing CVT transmissions or conventional automatics with multiple overdrive gears.
The 400 had none of those advantages.
It came with a standard four speed manual transmission (imagine that) and its optional transmission was a three speed automatic. Neither had overdrive. The engine was fed by a carburetor – a mechanical fuel-delivery device that is much less efficient, that cannot self-adjust its air-fuel ratio to suit conditions as electronic fuel injection does. It would be interesting to see what kind of mileage an ’82 400 might deliver if its engine were fitted with modern fuel injection and its non-overdrive transmissions were replaced with a modern transmission with overdrive.
It would probably be capable of getting close to 60 MPG on the highway. No hybrid needed. Not the cost. Not the weight. Not the complexity (and so, the eventual repair/replacement costs).
Which brings us to the price – of the ’82 400. The MSRP was $8,443 for the base trim coupe and a little more than that for the sedan. Keep in mind, also, that the 400 was not a low-rent econo-car, even though it was extremely economical. It was the luxury-iteration of the Aries K-car.
According to the government’s sketchy inflation calculator – which gauges the decreased purchasing power of the dollar – it would take $29,851 of today’s less potent dollar to buy the ’82 400 today, if it were available new. Interestingly, that’s about what it costs to buy a new Prius hybrid today ($28,550) that gets about the same gas mileage. But needs the hybrid drivetrain to get it. And you also get a roster of “driver assistance technology” – soon to include an eye-movement monitor.
Ah, progress!
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
[…] Eric Peters – http://www.epautos.com with today’s Wheels Up Wednesday talk and listener calls. https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2026/06/15/53-mpg-no-hybrid-required/ and https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2026/06/17/an-electric-ranger-sort-of/ along with […]
Or you could just buy the hybrid if you want high mpg.
Preferably one using Toyota’s tried-and-true Hybrid Synergy Drive.
Progressive Freedumbs for the Goyims!!
Thanks EPA & DOT, and most importantly, the (((JUSA GOVERNMENT)))!!!
We couldn’t have had such a transportation mess without your meddlesome interference and demands, right?
And have you heard? Our chocolate rations will be increased by (((Big Brother))) from 20 grams to 10 grams this week! I can’t wait!!!….
YMMV…..
The average new internal combustion engine (ICE)
passenger car in 1982 achieved approximately
31 to 32 mpg for highway driving under unadjusted
laboratory testing conditions, which translates
to roughly 24 to 25 mpg in real-world highway driving.
In 2025, the average new internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicle achieved roughly 31.7 miles per gallon (MPG)
for official EPA laboratory highway driving. This translates
to approximately 25.6 MPG in real-world combined
and highway conditions due to actual driving behaviors
average car ice engine fuel economy in 1982
is almost the same as average car ice engine
fuel economy in 2025
Best thing I ever read you wrote: “average car ice engine fuel economy in 1982
is almost the same as average car ice engine
fuel economy in 2025”
Could you imagine the dumbfound look on people’s faces (the average person on the street) when told that?
[Insert image from Mark Dice video of people taking a chocolate candy var over a one ounce gold coin.] Here. X
…We’re surrounded.
Whoops, “a chocolate candy var” = a chocolate CANDY bar.
I wish we could get 1 edit for our posts here….lol
EPA
The advertised US highway mileage
for the standard 1982 Dodge 400
was 40 estimated highway US MPG,
The average speed in the 1982 EPA highway
US miles per gallon (MPG) test — the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HWFET) —
was only 48.3 miles per hour
Under normal highway driving habits,
most owners reported getting
closer to 28 to 32 US MPG on long trips
While it is true that Chrysler highlighted
53 MPG highway / 39 MPG city in some
1982 Canadian and promotional materials
(but 40 highway / 26 city in standard US advertisements),
these numbers were the product of a highly flawed,
outdated laboratory testing system
The advertised figure of 53 miles per gallon
(and 39 mpg city) for the 1982 Dodge 400 was
for an Imperial gallon, with 25% more fuel
then a US gallon, … any car automatically achieved
a “higher” MPG rating on paper in Canada.
In the US, that exact same car was advertised
with a still-optimistic 40 or 41 highway MPG.
53 miles per Canadian imperial gallon
is equal to approximately
44.13 miles per US gallon.
both are fantasy numbers
based on real world driving
experience by dodge 400 owners
‘an Imperial gallon, with 25% more fuel then [sic] a US gallon’
An Imperial gallon (~4.55 L) is 20% more than a US gallon (~3.79 L), not 25% more.
The MPG estimates in the 70s had a politically influenced “fudge factor”.
Chrysler products in particular were given a lot of leeway at the EPA because of Lee Iacocca’s PR machine.
What about a Rabbit? …Wow-a, did that car ever sip gasoline.
Wish I could buy one now. …Cheaply, like it was back then.
If you can find a running Wabbit diesel…BUY IT
My first car was a ’70 Subaru FF1 Wagon, bought used in ’75. Basically a 4-door hatch-back. Could haul 4 or 5 people, or back seat could fold down flat to increase cargo area.
Engine: 1,100cc (64ci) 4-cyl boxer w/ 2-bbl carb (vacuum actuated sec), rated at 66hp.
Trans: 4-speed manual.
Dry weight: 1,500 pounds.
Over the 3 years I had it, mileage averaged 39mpg, with a low of 36, and a high of 43. I kept meticulous logs (dad’s influence). Always filled the tank. Always stopped when pump clicked off (short filler neck enforced that).
No carb issues. Always started, always ran, no matter the weather. Was a tractor in snow.
Only real downside was that it ate points and plugs. I quickly learned to keep multiple sets of both ready, and did swaps every 3,000 miles. Got so I could do the swap (incuding setting the dwell) in 20 to 30 minutes. (I’m sure today’s auto engineers could solve that issue)
Simple, reliable, basic transportation.
A car like that today could easily be marketed for $15,000. Especially if they replaced the tranny with a 5-speed. I would stand in line for one.
– leadfoot
Back in those days I had a ’78 Honda Civic that got that kind of mileage. The big difference was that it was fun to drive, could park anywhere, and was cheap to own. I had the cylinder head rebuilt, and installed a new timing belt and water pump at the same time for just under $200. $150 of that, or so, was the machine work.
Things back then were kind of the opposite the way they are today. Back then, the government MPG wildly over-estimated MPGs. The only car back then that actually got 50MPG was the tiny Honda CVCC. In reality, those K cars might get 30-something MPGs on the highway…in those days when the top speed limit was a disgustingly slow 55MPG.. Yeah, never go faster than 55 and you’ll get pretty good MPGs in anything.
I’d still take one of those K cars over the rolling spyware they offer today. Even at 30-something MPG, that’d still be amazing. Not that I even care about “fuel economy”- so why does the government FORCE auto manufacturers to offer products I don’t want, while preventing them from building things I really might want?
But damn, how far we’ve fallen! Those K cars were so simple an orangutan with a screwdriver could fix ’em if anything ever went wrong. They were cheap. Not exactly exciting to drive, but if you wanted something more exciting that could also be had in a straight-forward simple vehicle….with the detriment of being gimped by suffocating “emission controls”.
100% this.
Those gas mileage stickers from 40 years ago were wildly optimistic. Maybe that thing could get 53 mpg on the highway, going 45mph, downhill, but probably no other time.
I had a 1991 Geo Metro once. 1.0L 3-cylinder engine, automatic transmission, the car weighed 1,700 lb, which is 700 less than that Dodge. This thing really did get in the mid 40 mpg range on the highway and in the high 20’s in the city. Overall, it was in the very high 30 mpg range. This thing was much smaller, lighter, and had more modern engine controls than the Dodge K-Car, and couldn’t manage the same mileage, so I call shenanigans on that Dodge ad.
Eric’s point, overall, stands. Modern cars are huge and heavy compared to anything from the past. Heck, I had a Lotus Elise for almost 20 years, and that thing, praised for its light weight, was a 2-seater that was 300 lb heavier than my old 4-seater Geo. You could even put 5 people in it, if they really liked each other.
Exactly!
There’s a point of maximum efficiency where the physics are optimized….and that’s it. Try as one might, ya can’t overcome the limits of physics- and as far as the modern cars go, making them heavier and more powerful, while also strangling them with more emissions BS, is like making them chase their own tail…..while just making them more expensive and less durable. Ya want efficiency? Simplicity is the key- and of all things, that is the one thing most lacking in modern cars.
They want to save us a few hundred dollars in gas over the lifetime of a car; meanwhile, they’ll spend my money like water and make me pay THOUSANDS more for that new car, that won’t last as long as the “gas guzzler” that “only” got 25MPG, and which has a plethora of delicate systems which break easily and which are very expensive to repair, and which aren’t even remotely necessary for a car to have, except for the ‘necessity’ created by the mandates of tyrants.
There maybe one or two vehicles that an achieve the mileage figures on the EPA sticker. Usually, your lileage may vary. Same with today.
I had the misfortune of driving a rental prius in the early 10s. I got about 35.
More recently, I drove a Chevy “Trailblaizer” Generally averaged 26 to 27 highway at 70 to 80.
Thats well below the 33 it said.
I could have maybe squeaked 31 out of it had i stayed in the 60s.
Bottom line: your mileage may vary.
We have mainly made sideways progress since and the cars have become significantly wore in almost every way.
Except for acceleration and braking.
EPA rated mileage is 100% defined by their test loop. It’s not real world. It’s valid for comparing cars against each other at the time of purchase, but no more.
Yes. Just like emissions tests. Yet, that pinhead lab in VA used the fact that real world emissions (which don’t correlate to lab results) did not match the lab generated numbers for Volkswagen in that case. VW had to pay millions in fines to the EPA because it’s numbers did not match exactly.
Hyundai had to pay customers a refund because their cars did not achieve 40 mpg.
The government uses the test results for what they want.
“you could have bought a brand-new Dodge 400 that touted 53 MPG in city driving and 39 on the highway.”
Contrariwise, Mr Peters.
In the Dodge 400 ad, the reference to a “2.2 litre powerplant” indicates that it’s from a Canadian publication — as does the asterisked note about “Transport Canada Fuel Consumption Guide.”
But the bubble-headed beach blonde is pure Commiefornian! 🙂
That would also affect the MPG estimate/calculation as the Imperial gallon is about 20% larger than the US gallon.
Yep. That’s 44 miles per US gallon.
Cars like the K-Car were conceived of during the gas crises of the 1970s, under the very rational assumption that by the time they hit the market, gas would be selling for $2.50 a gallon…and go inexorably higher, with predictions of gas selling for north of $5 before 1990 and north of $10 by 2000…if, in fact, there was any left to sell.
If we are serious about “reducing carbon emissions that cause climate disruption” and “reducing dependence on fossil fuels” then K-Cars are the kinds of cars we need…not the monstrosities on the road today.
With today’s technology, K-Cars would get even better gas mileage, drive, handle, and ride even better, be safer, and who knows, cost less. But we can’t have that for some reason. Why is beyond me.
The government regulations, not just in this country, but in the “developed” world, are permanently in conflict.
The safety regulations have turned every vehicle into a heavy tank with requirements for rollover and side impact in addition to the supplemental restraint system. They also turned every vehicle into a Volvo (Chinese owned and a minor player) and now-dead Saab, thus eliminating the market niche of both.
It reminds me of the “don’t call it a tank but it certainly looks like one” M10 Booker that was designed to be light and air droppable, but the good idea fairies at the Pentagon kept adding armor and equipment until it became too heavy for the bridges at Fort Campbell, its first base. Two were to be carried by the C-17 transport plane, but the Booker got so porky that only one could be carried and it was no longer air droppable, thus defeating the original purpose.
The other contradiction is CAFE, which has forced automakers to build these tiny, turbocharged motors to lug around heavy vehicles. They pass the EPA tests for mileage and carbon “emissions” but aren’t good for much else. These engines are under serious internal pressure and won’t have the longevity of naturally aspirated larger engines, which the automakers don’t mind since they’ll be able to sell you a new car sooner.
If the Trump administration really cared about Americans, they’d scrap most or all of these regulations overnight. Imagine the startup firms that could offer, cheaper, light, fun vehicles. That is why the automakers would fight such a decision since the regs act as a massive barrier to entry for any competition.
“ If the Trump administration really cared about Americans, they’d scrap most or all of these regulations overnight.”
You summed up our situation perfectly, Dr. Mantis.
comment of the week. Very well explained
We had a 1983 Chrysler New Yorker with the Miss-u-bitchy 4cyl, Fantastic car!
We drove the wheels off it even pulling trailers around the country. Drove it like a taxi and NEVER had an issue. Many years later sold it for more than I paid for it, and the people who drove it away were tickled pink.
It’s the grey car parked next to my 1971 Challenger here: https://ibb.co/wrZYGLJD
Classy, comfortable and great MPG. I’ve always wanted another one.
Morning, AMC guy!
Growing up, many of my friends’ parents had cars like the 400. As a teenager, I got to drive some of them. We made fun of them, at the time – because they were slow and (being teenagers into Camaros/Firebirds and Chevelles, etc.) we looked askance at FWD/four-cylinder cars. But – my God! – if only such cars were available today. They could be, too – were it not for all the cancerous trends of the past 40-plus years, including (but by no means limited to) the “safety” crap. There is also the stupidity so many have bought into of waddling around in these under-engined/overweight modern cars that can get to 60 in 7 seconds or less but which they drive as if they couldn’t get to 60 in less than 13 seconds.
Every day, I drive amongst these slow-moving vehicles that are capable of quick acceleration, high speed and high-g cornering but rarely, if ever, driven in a way that is congruent with their capabilities. So it’s like watching a bunch of fat old men with diabetes walking around with codpieces on. The average person would be much better served by a modern equivalent of the 400. A 50-plus MPG car that costs less than $20k (which it could, were it not for all the crap).
Instead, we have the surreal strangeness of all these overpowered/under-used/fuel-inefficient vehicles slow-poking around.
Morning Eric, Yes me and my friends felt the same way, until my mom bought one, and later a couple more.. and I got to drive em. They were easy to live.
P.S. Sorry it was a 1984. I bought the car off a small local dealer lot around 1995. Negotiated price down to $1275 dollars.
The only issue was the odometer was digital and instead of numbers just showed a few dots. But you could see it was owned by old folks (Veteran sticker on rear window and box of tissues on the rear window deck) and was mint!
Is anybody else missing the before times yet??
I was wondering, the M body mopar came with a 318 or 360 V8, and while they had many virtues, power and mpg weren’t among them. That Mitsubishi 2.6 WAS a great motor, I had a couple in clapped out 80s Caravans, even in a refrigerator box on wheels they had fair power and got high 20s for mpg. Al’s had a timing chain vs the k car 2.2s rubber band.
And they… somehow got corrected to Al’s…
RE: “Is anybody else missing the before times yet??”
…You are, a Funny Guy!
One, of some:
1970 AMC AMX
113,377 mi • 8 Cylinder • Orange
Frickin’ $49,500
https://classics.autotrader.com/classic-cars/1970/amc/amx/102703420
My 1970 AMX 390 4-Speed was yellow.
It was a beautiful bad-*ss machine.
I paid $2200
Nice Challenger. Do you still have it?
Unfortunately no.. I REALLY should have kept it, and a few others too.
Often, I think about, ” I REALLY should have kept it,”
With rare exception, I doubt it pans out.
Insurance, storage costs, mice, etc. Is it climate controlled $$$?
I’ll never forget seeing an actual real rats nest under the intake manifold of a ’66 GTO.
…Pure, devastation.
2.2L Chrysler 4-Cylinder (3-Speed Automatic):
Due to the lack of an overdrive gear
and the parasitic loss of the automatic transmission,
expect 24 to 27 MPG on the highway.
the claim of 39 miles per gallon on the highway is false
Richard,
The fact is it was common back in the early ’80s for cars to average 40-plus and exceed 50 MPG. It was possible because they were light and had small engines that didn’t make a lot of power. They were slow, certainly. But the mileage was excellent. The mileage today is comparatively pathetic.
“The fact is it was common
back in the early ’80s for cars” EP
it was not common,
it was rare, and the actual ratings
grossly overstated real world experience
While a few iconic 1980s “econoboxes” did hit those numbers, it was not common for vehicles to average 40+ mpg back then. According to the U.S. EPA’s Automotive Trends Report, the actual average fuel economy for a new passenger car in 1980 was 23.5 mpg, and the combined average for all light-duty vehicles (including trucks) was a mere 19.2 mpg
In 1982, the Chevrolet Chevette Diesel became the historic first American-made car to officially break and average over the 40 miles per gallon (mpg) barrier in federal testing.
During this era, with the EPA calculation models far less strict in 1982 than they are today, only several lightweight U.S. compacts achieved over 40 mpg on the highway
Richard,
You’re wrong as well as supercilious. The Renault Fuego. The Honda CRX. The Chevy Sprint. Toyota Starlet. Plymouth Champ. Isuzu I-mark. You also miss the point. These cars got better gas mileage than today’s cars despite not having the advantages of overdrive gearing or EFI.
Go away, please.
approximately 200 to 250 distinct car models
sold in the United States during the 1982 model year.
only a few could get 40 miles per gallon
or more on the highway
if you don’t like my accurate comments
just ban me from your website
Richard,
I named six cars from that era delivered very high mileage; 40-plus. I could have listed practically every Honda, Datsun and Toyota from that era. Also every Renault and just about every Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth from that era. VW Rabbit diesels were capable of 60 MPG.
Your comments are “accurate” in the same way that your comments from a few days ago re EVs were “accurate.”
6 of 200 to 250 model is rare
The EPA significantly overhauled and lowered its window-sticker calculation methods in 1985 and to reflect more realistic real-world driving,
If you look up these early-80s Chrysler vehicles on the modern Official US Fuel Economy Database, their numbers have been retroactively recalculated using modern formulas to reflect true driving habits.
The 51 MPG Plymouth Horizon Miser scales down to a modern real-world estimate of 33–35 highway MPG.
why do you parrot the EPA numbers that are fantasy and ignore the real world experience of drivers?
Richard,
I mentioned more than six. I mentioned essentially the entire lineups of Honda, Toyota and Datsun at the time. Also Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth. GM and Ford also sold high-MPG cars at this time.
24 mpg- Only if you drive it like a schmuck. Though 53 was probably a stretch, high 30s low 40s with a light, low car driven conservatively was pretty common.
I was thinking that. I owned a 1983 Civic until it rusted away that was designed all about fuel economy. It did have the bumped to 1.5L with a 5 speed with overdrive mid grade version that took unleaded gas (being in Colorado the leaded gas capable 1300 wasn’t an option by then). It only ever got into the low 40s for MPG. Curb weight on it was 1,700 lbs soaking wet. Auto company marketing has always played loose-and-fast and the engineering department has always gamed the EPA tests, long before VW was “caught” do it.
It appears the EPA thought my tiny roller skate of a car should have averaged about 35 MPG and that was a pretty fair assessment from my experience.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9100MVYW.PDF?Dockey=9100MVYW.PDF
Damn it Ken – don’t provide facts that are contrary to the narrative
RE: “my tiny roller skate of a car”
HA! That’s what the bastards want to make the norm for getting around. …Battery powered, of course. So’s you’ll melt down the garage/house/apartment complex while recharging.
…Limited range,too. …No further than a bunny rabbit circles about.
I meant to say, the bastards want to make it the norm that everybody gets around on roller skates.
…Really, isn’t that what electric cars are?
…Controllable, & severely limited. A pebble in the way fucks them up & makes them deathtraps. (trapped in a pond, the doors won’t open and the windows won’t roll down) The skates, they be strapped on.
i am sorry to tell you this story
is false and should be deleted
to preserve your reputation
Myth: a brand-new dodge 400
touted 53 mpg in city driving
and 39 on the highway.
while the word “touted” is correct,
the claim was nonsense
The 1982 Dodge 400 actually achieved
roughly 20 to 25 mpg, not 53 mpg in the city
Both the Dodge K-cars and the Chrysler 400
used the 2.2 L Chrysler K-series inline-four (135 cid)
as the standard engine, producing about 84 hp
a close elderly relative who drove slowly
had an early 1980s K car
and the miles per gallon were 20 to 25
(it was also a very unreliable vehicle)
The confusion stems from old
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
laboratory testing procedures
from the late 1970s and early 1980s,
which yielded wildly optimistic,
unadjusted estimates.
Wrong. As plainly stated in the ad copy, the 53 mpg highway figure was published in the Transport Canada Fuel Consumption Guide.
Ah, imperial gallons strike again. Though the old K cars and 400s still were capable of very good economy, right up until the floor rotted completely away.
Don’t bother Eric with facts. As with most Journo’s he loves the liberty of making stuff up to suit his narrative.
Same for his continued rhetoric that a car such as the 400 could be produced for less than $20k. Yet, he has no working knowledge of the manufacturing side of the industry, labor costs, material costs, and doesn’t seem to understand cost of production vs. sales volume.
It’s the nature of the business.
Really, Jimmer?
Then how do you account for the fact that there are several brand-new small crossovers, sedans and hatches available in Mexico for well under $20k (some around $15k) that are capable of 40 MPG or better? I wrote a whole article detailing this a few months back. I guess you missed it.
See here: https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2026/04/21/its-not-just-inflation/
Now the 400 – something like it – could absolutely be made for even less – because a car like that would not have air bags or the other crap the cars I mentioned above do have.
So there you have it.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Eric, you know well Americans don’t buy subcompact cars in volume Geo Metro, Chevy Spark, et al, have all failed repeatedly in the US market. Unless we have some sort of existential crisis – this isn’t going to change. America is a big wide open county. It’s once thing to use a subcompact to drive in Mexico City. It’s another thing entirely to travel across a western US state in one.
Costs don’t come down without massive sales volumes to amortize costs of tooling. You can’t build a car for $15k at volumes that subcompacts sell at in the US. The Chevy Spark as an example had peak sales volume was 39k units and more often than not was low 20-30k ish range.
And of course this is all fantasy land and ignores the reality of having to meet US safety and emissions.
If you actually understood the auto business and manufacturing costs you would understand this . . . But I digress
Pete,
But the fact is they once did sell in volume; they continue to sell in volume outside the US. Would they sell in the US now? I’d sure like to see! Millions of people can no longer afford to buy a new car due to the cost of the cars that are available. The affordability problem is real – it is not just my opinion. The car companies have banked on selling fewer more expensive cars, but that only works when enough people are willing to buy them. That number is declining. Toss in $4 gas and 4 percent (it’s more than that, of course) inflation and -I think there are millions of people who’d eagerly buy a $15k car that gets 40 MPG.
The idea that a Nissan Versa (and other such small cars as are available in Mexico) isn’t viable to use for more than close-in/city driving is absurd. A Versa can cruise all day at 70 MPH.
PS: Mexico is a big country, too. People drive similar long distances there as they do here.
Keep in mind part of the reason for the volume of cars sold in the 50s to 70s was they didn’t last very long. You could likely do a correlation to see an inverse relationship between the rise in popularity of Hondas and Toyotas and the decline in units sold per year. You could further validate this seeing a new increase in sales starting about 2005 as the average quality of those brands has started to decrease.
Very true, Ken –
The larger point I was trying to make in the article is that it’s just absurd how relatively fuel-inefficient most new vehicles are; that they are overweight and (arguably) over-powered because most people do not make regular or even occasional use of their performance capabilities.
It would be informative to use a persistent model such as the Civic or Corolla to demonstrate this. The Civic as an example has been built more than 50 years. Seems worthwhile to do the journalism and use your platform. This car ranges in weight, size, power and technology. How does a 1976 compare to a 1986, 1996, 2006, 2016, 2026 in these measurements? Some is subjective such as how big is big enough, how much power is enough? There are versions of the Civic that even give you some of this in the Type R and what-not.
Importing a 2026 Nissan Versa manufactured in Mexico into the United States would subject the vehicle to either a 25% ad valorem tariff on its non-U.S. content (70%) or a flat 10% global surcharge, depending strictly on whether the vehicle qualifies for trade protections.
Even before the tariffs the versa had a small profit margin in mexico
Yes, Richard –
But those are all artificial costs that have nothing at all to do with the cost of manufacturing the vehicle itself. The fact is the Versa is available for less than $20k in Mexico; the fact is there are several other new vehicles available for even less. This establishes as fact that such vehicles can be made and sold for less than $20k. Now imagine similar vehicles without air bags. . . actually, you don’t need to imagine them. You can buy such vehicles for around $12k in Europe and Asia.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
It’s not that you are outright wrong in concept, it’s that until there is a change in the regulatory environment and consumer attitudes and behaviors change radically, what you are proposing isn’t feasible.
No one spends $1B+ to develop a subcompact car for the US market because the consumer behavior isn’t there to support that investment
You say you would like to see but at least admit you’re wanting to gamble with Billions of someone else’s money.
The manufacturers are without doubt under the thumb of regulators. But they mostly can’t count on bailouts all the time and so have to presume they try to read the market tea leaves. They know how Kia, Hyundai, Honda, Toyota, Nissan do with their small cars. They know if a model sells and which versions sell. It’s not really an EPA block since they still sell them by the bucket load in Europe, Japan and Australia, who all follow similarly strict safety and emissions. They aren’t structured the same as the EPA with their arbitrary test cycles. They know cheap stick shifts would languish on lots offering them side-by-side to automatics so they streamline what they sell. Their engineering is sunk globally and certifying a model and engine for the U.S. costs money but not so much they couldn’t do it if they thought the profit was there.
The “nature of the business” is partly having Richard Jimmers constantly sniping at you.
Found this EPA document when trying to figure out what the EPA estimate of my Civic was.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9100MVYW.PDF?Dockey=9100MVYW.PDF
They show a Dodge 400 convertible as a 1983 model and they gave it a 22 MPG average estimate or 27 MPG with the FFS system.
FFS was the ‘fuel feedback system’, which was one of the early version of emissions controls. It used a computer to control a feedback carb and 3-way catalytic converter. It wasn’t a standard thing and if I remember correctly was only needed to meet California emissions in some cases.
LOL — also known as the “For F***’s Sake” system! 😉
Yup. First thing that jumped to mind seeing ‘FFS’ in that paper. The good old days weren’t all good. The insanity had already rooted by then.
One factor that helped the 400 get it’s great highway fuel economy was the 55 MPH speed limit.
That said it was a relatively easy to work on car with a belt line low enough to rest your arm out the window unlike today’s crap. What’s not to like?
That’s absolutely true, Landru –
Even so, these cars still got excellent gas mileage. Imagine something similar today, with the advantages of overdrive gearing and EFI.
All true but with the war allegedly ending shortly a lot of people will think it’s a great time to buy a new Escalade.
Still it would be nice if a mid size sedan with reasonable fuel economy at a reasonable size with styling that doesn’t hurt your eyes was still available but I guess that’s a bridge too far in today’s world. Of course the view out of that 400’s windows would have you looking at the door handles of the high rise vehicles around it.
That is absolutely true. I still drive cars, like my 05 Jetta TDI, and seeing through traffic is really a challenge. You can literally sometimes see UNDER the pickup in front of you. Even the wife’s Town and Country has this problem despite its taller and more comfortable seating position.
Your comment reminded me of this recent bit:
‘Why The Millionaire Next Door Drives A Used Car – And What That Teaches About Real Wealth’
“The wealthiest person I know personally drives a 2018 Toyota Camry. He owns three rental properties, has over $2 million in investment accounts, and could buy any car on any lot without blinking. He chooses not to, and his explanation is both simple and profound: “A car is a tool that takes you from one place to another. Everything beyond that is a payment for other people’s perception of you.””…
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/why-millionaire-next-door-drives-used-car-and-what-teaches-about-real-wealth
Well, you know, unless it has a carb, and is not, drive-by-wire, with multiple time-bomb-airbags , then, it might very well be lifesaving? …Or, at least, save an eye?
Probably, lower maintenance and repair costs, too.
…But, you prolly already know that. All that, =might= save money?
55 mph: over my dead body.
That said, in gas mileage tests, the average speed driven was 48 mph for the highway test. Speeds ranged up to 56 mph. Ironically the peak city speed was 60. In the highway tests, no AC.
In normal driving, there was no way to achieve the EPA numbers.
In a car rated 54 mpg, you could get 40 in the real world. In my Starlet, rated 39 city 54 highway, I got 35 to 40 at 70 or so. In the city, I could get 33 if I babied it. I usually got 31 or so.
Im sure if it had FI and taller highway gearing, the numbers would have been better.
The old tests are still used for compliance testing. Thats but one reason that the real world numbers are still pretty low, despite the use of different tests for the window sticker.
It is long past due to send CAFE to the landfill.
RE: “It is long past due to send CAFE to the landfill.”
Ya gotta git rid of the rat bastards who enforce it first. Last time I looked, DaCcongress, is rat infested.
…Made so, by, The Man on The Street.
…Which means, ya gotta edumacate The Man on The Street, first.
…What are the odds?
zero.