By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Does anyone have a chart of the oil prices reported from the speculator's market? I found one for Brent crude.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just saw a full page ad in my morning's newspaper from an oil company spouting some gibberish of why their continuing record profits are somehow "fair"....something about their continued reserearch and building of new refineries (yeah, like the mew ones that haven't been built, or even contracted to be built since 1976). They are trying way too hard to "justify" their obscene profits.
Staying on topic, Costco in SW OH is reportng $2.81/gal for regular. They consistently have been anywhere from a nickel/gal to as much as 50 cents/gal cheaper than the Shell's, BPs, etc are. Good gas, too. I've never had one spec of trouble using their gas over the last 5 years.
"A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC), "Greener SUVs; A Blueprint for Cleaner More Efficient Light Trucks," found that for $700, modest modifications to a Ford Explorer could increase its fuel economy by nearly 50 percent - from 19.3 mpg to 28.4 mpg. For an aditional $200, UCS found ways to iimprove fuel economy 75 percent, to 34.1 mpg. For the highest investment of $3,400,UCS could iimprove the Explorer's fuel economy by 126 percent-43.7 mpg. By comparison, if the gas-guzzler tax applied to the Explorer, Ford would have to pay $2,100 for each vehicle."
Do you think Ford is doing those mods?
(ponder, ponder, ponder)
Agreed.
I was reading as well that the companies are actually spending more on reseatch and exploration. I didn't know there were tons of oil fields in the Carribean :P Also stated more will be spent next year in maintenance and upgrades, and of building new refineries and the like. As you said basically bull.
Holding steady here @ $3.25, but a local Speedway did drop theit price of regulat to $3.19 from $3.25. Wasn't getting much business as they are across from a Shell whose prices where a few cents lower.
Yeah....right!
Stock holders dividends won't even begin to make a dent in that sort of cash rake.
On topic.....gas prices are all over the board in OH. Depending on the neighborhood, there's a much as a 25 cent/gal swing. Same truck goes to the different neighborhoods and fills up the same branded stations, yet there's such a price swing.
Somebody explain that to me.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Still getting gas at Costco at $2.81 in Cincinnati, though.
For more of this ridiculousness, here's something telling....
Exxon officials said Thursday it earned $10.36 billion in the second quarter. The announcement comes amid record gas prices in the United States. The figure is the second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company. In January, Exxon posted the highest quarterly profits of any public company in history: $10.71 billion. After the news broke this morning, the company's stock hit an all-time high. Meanwhile, OPEC says it's unable to do anything to stop surging oil prices. "There is no shortage in oil supply".
Not too hard to connect the dots to see what's going on here. This is criminal. It's obscene price gouging, plain and simple.
What determines when profits are "obscene" or "excessive"?
It is the American Way to make as much as possible when marketing a product, service, or idea.
"Obscene" conjures up feelings of jealousy by socialistic folk who are workers, not getters.
As an investor in the market I buy stock with the intent of maximizing my investment. ("profit" is not a four letter word.)
When the economy is warped due to these profits, when the pricing numbers and strategies cannot be justified. Collusion is denied, yet every pricing trend smacks of it.
What determines when profits are justifiable and ethical?
"It is the American Way to make as much as possible when marketing a product, service, or idea. "
Like saying it's the "American Way" to gouge after a disaster, or even an unwarranted bout of fear.
I know where the money is going...to buy the next president, just as the current one is bought...
Funny thing about the prices...a couple months ago my area was significantly above the national average...now it is at the average almost on the nose, even AFTER we had a tax increase. No justification...
But hey, if a few investors (and some who overestimate their power and influence) can be subsidized by the masses and thus alleviating some of the outcry and scrutiny, it's all good.
Really? Even in this day and age? I remember reading an article about the company that provides my electricity, and IIRC, something like 95% of it was created from nuclear and coal. The remaining 5% was split up among oil, solar, hydroelectric, and wind.
Still, even with such a small dependence on foreign oil, they found a way to justify raising our electric rates by 72% on July 1. :mad: And they're being seductive about it, saying they "only" raised them 15%, but the bill also shows a deferral of the $ amount of the 57% difference, which I'm sure they'll get out of us once they find a way to coerce the gov't into letting them.
Here's where the rant comes in.....
Oil is a commodity....just like pork bellies. Margins for commodities are well into single digits.
Nothing wrong with profit. But, when the market is being manipulated (probably illegaly, I might add) to prop up prices, then something is amiss.
Even OPEC is saying there's plenty of supply.
Yet, the useless, half hearted attempts to investigate this travesty tells volumes. The words those in power say about how they won't tolerate price gouging, yet do nothing about it.
If some gov't agency, who isn't afraid, would take it upon themselves to investigate the claims of refineries that they are using these unheard of profits to invest in their infrastructure, R&D, etc. I've seen scant evidence of any of that (otherwise, refining cpapcity would actually be going up). I think it would be a very telling read. I'd also like to know who the speculators, who are driving the price up, are actually working for. Bet you'd find some "off the books" payments there, too.
Forget about the public board meetings. I want to know about the meetings outside the boardroom. Who "these pillars of industry" are talking about and planning outside the boardroom.
Want to know why prices kept going up after the last Senate invstigation took place? Those being investigated knew there were going to be no consequences before they even testified. I'm sure there were some back room hand shakes and more than a few covert "nods and winks" because the outcome was going to be the same. That is, no findings of collusion (c'mon, the public isn't that stupid), no findings of price gouging, no findings of malfeasence. This is theft, disguised as legitimate commerce. As such, it is obscene.
This is the single biggest issue affecting every U.S. consumer and the U.S. economy (not the FEDs latest rate hike). Any candidate who trully comes out and does a full, impartial investigation, and agrees to prosecute those responsible, gets my vote. Wanna see how quickly and how far gas prces drop if that happens?
Rant over and to stay on topic....I filled up last night in OH for $2.86/gal.
When the real bad guys (OPEC) who stand to gain massively claim no legitimate supply issues, you know something isn't kosher.
That candidate who would do an investigation would never exist...corporate interests wouldn't allow him to succeed, or they'd buy him off.
Here's the breakdown for electrical power generation in the US, from EIA website (2004, latest available):
coal - 67%
oil - 3
gas - 9
nuclear - 21
So, fossil fuel is the source for 79% of our electrical power. IMO, switching from oil use (as gasoline) to coal is not a viable choice, given the emissions. Not to mention the electrical capacity today is virtually at its limit. And while increasing our nuclear power is the most promising alternative, the political reality, unfortunately, does not bode well for that possibility. And coal and gas, while relatively abundant in the US, are also, like oil, non-renewable resources.
All I'm really saying is that electricity-powered vehicles, while a necessary element for our future (so that we can take advantage of new energy sources), does not address the core topical issue here, which is the energy source.
Bottom line, I don't think switching to other fossil fuels is a good way to end our dependence on oil.
Coal (1,978,620 / 3,970,555) = 49.8%
Oil (120,646 / 3,970,555) = 3.0%
Nat. Gas (708,979 / 3,970,555) = 17.9%
Other Gases (16,766 / 3,970,555) = 0.4%
Nuclear (788,528 / 3,970,555) = 19.9%
Hydro (268,417 / 3,970,555) = 6.8%
Other renewables (principally solar/wind) (90,408 / 3,970,555) = 2.3%
Which means that fossil fuels total roughly 71% of our power generation, not 79%.
I also noted with interest the numbers on renewable energies (principally hydro, solar, and wind).
In the eleven years between 1993 and 2004, conventional hydroelectric power generation has bounced around quite a bit (280,494 in 1993, up to a high of 356,453 in 1997, and now down to 268,417 in 2004.
Electricity from other renewables have increased from 76,213 in 1993 to 90,408 in 2004 (an increase of 14,195 or up 18.6% in eleven years).
In the same period of time, our TOTAL electical production has increased from 3,197,191 to 3,970,555 (an increase of 773,364 or up 24.2% in eleven years).
So, not only has other renewables (solar/wind) production NOT kept up with increased demand (an increase of 14k is far shy of the total increase of 773k), it represents a SMALLER portion of the total electrical demand now than it did in 1993 (2.3% of total now; 2.4% of total in 1993).
Until the U.S. gets MUCH better at the production of electricity from renewables, moving closer to an electric-car society just means more and more electrical production from fossil fuels.
me: you may be able to get a little more out of existing refineries, and that has already happened through tech. improvements; but you're not thinking that because oil has shot up 1 or 2 years ago that new refineries would be built during that timeframe?
You don't think a refinery can be just thrown up anywhere in a few months do you? Try like 5 years to get the plans and approvals and another 5 years to build the refinery. Of course I'm sure it can be done much quicker with an authoritarian government. Maybe we can have the mid-East oil shipped east to China, be refined there, and then shipped to the U.S.? India would actually be a better location for new refineries.
me: yes and as our population continues to grow out into the future we have more electricity and automobile energy demand. And as the number of people around the world who move up out of poverty increases demand is further increased. It matters little whether you burn coal today and oil tomorrow, or oil today and coal tomorrow, because it is the same pool of non-renewable fossil fuels (echoing li sailor), with many of the same issues. The long-term solution is not a fossil fuel.
Even if abiogenic oil is constantly formed, if the scientists who propose that global warming is increasing because of fossil fuel burning are right, abiogenic oil would simply be the drug overdose that makes the vast majority of the planet underwater or uninhabitably hot.
Maybe you should talk your city into upgrading to a TI99/4a or Coleco-vision processor. Then it might be able to handle more traffic lights at a time than the TRS-80. But if you had more than 3 lights on the same row, the 4th one would flicker. :P
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/jump.jsp?origID=pdf-658
You'd think if they really tried hard, they could make a midsized SUV that could best that '96 Caprice wagon in acceleration and fuel economy.
I think he's averaged around 19-20 with it, which isn't all that bad considering the '98 Tracker convertible RWD/3-speed auto only got like 20-22. However, I drove it and about the best I could get out of it was 16. In comparison, my old '85 Silverado, with 119,000 miles on its aging 305-4bbl, gets about 13-14 in the same type of driving. And interestingly, they're both about the same weight/GVWR, ~4200/5600 pounds.
You'd almost think that fuel injection, DOHC, two extra gears in the automatic transmission, and 20 or so years of progress would account for more than that. Okay, so there is performance. I think this Xterra can do 0-60 in about 7 seconds, compared to maybe 12 with my pickup. But it's not like I'm out there driving full-out in either one. Just going with the flow of traffic, more or less. 0-60 in 7 seconds doesn't mean crap when the traffic in front of you wants to merge onto the highway at 45 mph. :confuse:
WEEELLLLL, my friend, that, like anything else....DEPENDS on the personal situation of the purchaser.....
For example:
I have a co-worker who just ordered a Highlander Hybrid. He ordered it as a AWD Limited.
He lives in the city. He is unlikely to EVER take this $40,000 vehicle "off-roading."
BUT - here's the kicker for him:
He *DOES* go camping four or five times a year in Northern Arizona forests. It's not unreasonable that he might get stuck in a rainstorm and have to traverse some forest roads when they are flooding and/or mud baths.
And he *DOES* go to a ski resort a couple of times a year. Up the paved road to the ski resort can get slick and snowy at times, and the AWD will help him keep it on the road.
So here's a person who about 99% of the time DOES NOT NEED AWD.
But there are situations in his life where he MUST have it, in order to traverse various obstacles such as muddy, rutted forest roads or snowy highways.
So he really has no choice but to buy the AWD version and lose about 1 to 2 MPG.
There was an editorial at Automotive News early this month decrying this exact fact, called something like "I remember when we had REAL fuel economy". The days of 50 mpg cars unassisted by hybrid or diesel powertrain elements are long gone, but they were here once.
And don't tell me that adding 250 pounds of emissions gear and dual airbags made this an inevitability. The average weight gain of the small cars has been like 600 pounds. The average full-size sedan is about to top 4000 pounds. Two tons of steel to seat five and go to the store? What the heII are we doing?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I did say NEVER, it does not apply to him. You can also say that the 4X4 has better resale value than the 2 wheel drive. The real supposition is what can an SUV accomplish that the big old wagons did not do with better mileage? I can remember going on some horrible roads camping in an old Pontiac station wagon. The Highlander Hybrid is not designed for off-road use according to Toyota.
Further off-topic messages will be removed. Thanks for helping keep conversation on-track.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
How did you have to drive some of those old economy cars to really get 50 mpg out of them, though? Back in college a buddy of mine had a 1980 Accord coupe with a 3-speed automatic. I'd say he'd get about 20 mpg around town and maybe 25 on the highway. My 1980 Malibu, which outweighed it by about 1000 pounds, could out-accelerate it by a wide margin, and even handled better, would get around 15-16 around town and maybe 22 on the highway. And when that thing gave way to a '69 Dart, the acceration difference was even more embarrassing to the Accord, while the Dart actually got slightly better mileage (15-18 around town, and up to 23 on the highway) than the Malibu did. That was actually one reason why I didn't see that much advantage in buying a little car, because you gave up too much comfort, performance, etc, for not that much of a gain in fuel economy.
I had a 1991 Civic rental back in early 1992. It was a 4-door sedan, had the stronger 100 or so hp 4-cyl, and a 4-speed automatic. On that whole trip I averaged about 29 mpg in mostly highway driving, with no a/c.
Sometimes I wonder how much additional weight really hurts the economy of a car. I know in constant stop-and-go driving it would, because you have to keep accelerating all that mass over and over again. However, out on the highway, the change might not be all that much. For example, last year I went down to Florida with some friends. By the time you add in the two friends and all the luggage, that probably accounted for at least 500 pounds extra weight. So a car that's normally ~3400 pounds plus the driver was now at least 3900 pounds plus the driver. Yet on that trip we averaged about 27 mpg, at speeds of around 70-80 mph, with the a/c going the whole time. Yet 27 mpg is about what my Intrepid would get at 70-80 mph with the a/c going and just me on board. So in this case, the 500+ pounds had no effect, other than on merging onto the highways.
Yet 500 pounds is pretty significant. Back in the 60's it represented the difference between the heaviest compacts and the lightest full-sized cars. And when GM and the others started downsizing in the late 70's, 500-800 pounds it about what most of them lost, although station wagons tended to lose about 1000 pounds or more.
I read that commentary from an outside writer (not an Automotive News editorialist), and he ought to be embarrassed to call himself an automotive "historian."
He touted the 1941 Nash Ambassador 600’s range of 600 miles per tankful as superior to the Ford Escape Hybrid’s advertised range of 500 miles. But he omits mention of the 600’s miles per gallon. If you strap on a large enough fuel tank, any range is attainable (like the Rutan airplane that circled the globe without refueling).
The next two cars he cites as paragons of fuel efficiency were automotive parodies, much smaller than today’s Mini Cooper and Honda Fit, including the King Midget, which Foster admits was a “teensy 2-passenger runabout.” Its last engine upgrade in 1966 increased its horsepower to 12! (My lawn tractor has 18 hp.) The Crosley was a very small 2- or 4-seater (depending on body style) with a stamped steel engine producing all of 26.5 hp in 1947. The Nash Metropolitan was more mainstream, but still a 2-seater, with a wheelbase of only 85 inches. (The current Mazda Miata has a wheelbase of 92 inches.)
He then states that the EPA city/highway mpg ratings were 30/40 for his 1978 Mazda GLC and 38/52 for his 1984 Renault Alliance. However, he forgot that EPA applied a “correction factor” starting with the 1985 model year, with no change in the test method, which simply lopped 10% off the test result’s city mpg and 22% off the highway mpg. Translation? 27/31 mpg for the GLS and 34/41 mpg for the Alliance. Not surprisingly, the best 1985 ratings among several Alliance models according to the EPA are 34/40 mpg.
Today, there are mainstream cars with gasoline engines and automatic transmissions that offer outstanding mileage, such as the very popular Toyota Corolla (30/38) and Honda Civic (30/40).
I always wondered what kind of fuel economy you could get out of a lawn tractor engine if you re-geared it and put it in a lightweight runabout type vehicle that could go maybe 35-45 mph? I'm too young to remember it, but back in the early 70's my neighbor built a small replica of a Model-A for his kids to ride around the yard in, using a tractor engine as the basis for it. He said it was actually pretty dangerous, as it would get up to about 30 mph, which is a bit much for running around in the yard!
Anyway, I figure that I can run my tractor for about 3 hours, and use maybe 1 to 1.5 gallons of gasoline. Now I'd guess that probably only involves driving about 4-5 miles, but when you figure that the whole time is spent cutting grass that I've let grow too high to begin with, which puts more of a strain on the tractor, and the thing only has a top speed now of about 5 mph, I guess that's not too bad.
I'm sure that something like this converted to personal transporation use would get pretty good economy. But then, being a 2-stroke engine it might get the economy of a Prius but the emissions of an out-of-tune 426 Hemi run at full throttle! :surprise:
And gagrice, I think the premise in this particular thread is that one is seeking to maximize fuel economy. If you did/do not prioritize it, that's cool, but then you miss the premise here.
And to the general audience: isn't 18 hp a bit much in a lawnmower? Even if it is driveable? We ARE just cutting grass here, right? :surprise:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Then, if you got the only automatic, a 3-speed unit, this engine was good for only 25/28 mpg.
By contrast, in the Corolla, if you go with the 5-speed manual, the mileage improves to 32/41 mpg.
Plus of course the Alliance had no airbags, no effective side impact protection, and as we all know now, no reliability!
As for 18 hp in the lawn tractor, I dunno, mine is just a lower line Sears model. Figure that it's pretty heavy, has to carry a rider, AND cut the grass, I don't think that the power is out of line. My rotary push mower has 4.5 hp, and all that has to do is cut the grass, since I supply the motive power.
Andre, I think my tractor is a 4-stroke, as you don't have to mix gas and oil and it says "OHV."
The simple fact is we got power-mad in the last 20 years, even as 25% of us demanded ridiculously heavy SUVs to drive our 1 kid and toys around in.
I applaud Toyota for the 34/40 Yaris and the 32/41 Corolla, even as I think it is pathetic that we haven't been able to do any better than that.
You realize that Corolla can get to 60 mph in about 8 1/2 seconds, per C&D. Reduce the engine size or change the gearing (or preferably a little of both) so it takes 10 1/2 seconds to do the same, and I bet you would see a 50 mpg highway rating for that model. But no, speed MUST prevail for the American consumer, even in his/her little commuter car in rush hour traffic!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That said, even with increased safetly pollution concerns I am surprised that the engineers cannot get small car with NS gas engines to be 50 mpg highway.
I think my uncle says he averages about 34-38 in mostly highway (but often stop and go rush hour) driving in his '03 Corolla. In comparison, I let him use my Intrepid for about a week when his Corolla had to go in the shop, and he was getting about 26-28.
As for tractors and hp, I think our 1990 Montgomery Ward V-2 has 16 hp. We also have an old late 60's Montgomery Ward that, according to the owner's manual, has something like 10-11 hp. Run into some overly tall grass though with the newer tractor and it's much easier to stall it out than with that old beast. Maybe Montgomery Ward started over-rating hp by the early 90's, kinda like how the musclecars did in the late 60's?
Also, the late 60's tractor is just a 3-speed that you have to stop to shift the gears, while the 1990 is a 7-speed that you can shift on the fly. And that's 7 forward speeds and 7 reverse speeds. But max speed on both tractors in top gear is about the same. Yes, I know this from experience...we're redneck enough out in these parts that we've raced them! :P I dunno how the old one compares for fuel economy though. The guy I have to come out and service them though (he works up at the local golf course and services all of their equipment) says the old one will probably outlive us all, and be here long after the '90 model has been pounded to crap.
As for fuel economy in general, while we don't have any of these anomaly toys that might get the ultra-high mileage that some of those older things did, you can probably blame the gov't for that. There is no way that they would let something like a Crosley or Isetta on the modern highways. At best it would be limited to side streets, like a moped.
I think if you compare cars, pound for pound, between today and 1990, most of them will have better fuel economy. That Honda Civic I had for a rental back in 1992 was EPA-rated at 24/29. So I was getting right around the highway estimate. But an '06 Accord automatic is more like 30/40. I'd say that's a pretty big jump, especially when you consider tha an '06 Accord is a few hundred pounds heavier (I don't think they've porked up like some cars have) and much quicker (that '91 was a dog, even with the bigger engine)
My 2000 Intrepid is rated at 20/29. Somehow by 2004 they got it up to 21/29. Back in 1990 there were two rough equivalents to an Intrepid, so take your pic...Dodge Monaco, at 17/26, or the Dodge Dynasty at 19/26, regardless of whether you got the 3.0 or the 3.3. If you wanted to try and get something like that to be economical, you could get the wheezy 2.5, which got 22/27.
Now maybe this isn't the best example, since the Intrepid is no longer with us, and has been replaced by the Charger. If you're masochistic enough to seek out a rental model with the 2.7, you get 21/28. The 3.5 V-6, which can do 0-60 in under 8 seconds, gets 19/27. No Dynasty or Monaco from 1990 would go nearly that fast, and the only way you'd get that out of an Intrepid was to go for the 3.5 model, which was rated around 17/26. And even if you get the 5.7 Hemi, you're still at 17/25, close to the 1990 Monaco. But a helluva lot faster.
Now yeah, maybe these cars could have improved more, had they focued more on the economy than the performance. However, they still would have added weight. We might look back at some of those older cars through rose-tinted glasses, but if you get a chance to drive something from, say, 1990, unless maybe it's something like an S-class Mercedes or something, you're going to notice that it's a lot more shaky than its modern day equivalent. They might make the sheetmetal thinner these days, but the beefing up underneath, where it counts, is often much more substantial. Unit bodied vehicles are beefier than before, and most body-on-frame trucks these days have fully boxed frames to add to the rigidity. Back in 1990 I don't think any body-on-frame vehicle had a fully boxed frame. Ford tried it for a while around 1965-67, but they trapped water and actually rusted out faster, and back in in the late 50's, before perimeter frames and unit-body construction became common, most frames were boxed, but the bodies often didn't have that much beefing up underneath that thick sheetmetal.
Yeah, it's not the fastest, and you couldn't get a factory moonroof, but it kicks butt on gas mileage, even competing very strongly with the new hybrids. The Honda fans, of course, think that Honda killed the HX so it wouldn't outshine the new hybrid sedan!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Like all other 2001 Civics (except the forthcoming 2002 Civic Si), the Civic HX features a 1.7-liter four-cylinder engine. Equipped with a special "lean burn" version of Honda's variable valve timing and lift system (VTEC), the HX produces 117 horsepower and 111 foot-pounds of torque. Honda says it was difficult to make the car fuel efficient and clean enough to meet Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) status like the rest of the 2001 Civic lineup. The company's solution was to install special catalytic converters and a revised exhaust manifold. "
So Honda likely killed the HX because it could not keep the exhaust clean enough with that engine to meet EPA/CARB requirements.
The 2002 HX only scored very poor "3" on the EPA Air Pollution score.
In the 2006 model year, the average fuel economy of the entire fleet (excluding heavy trucks and buses) will be 21.0 mpg.
Avg. curb wt: 4142 lbs
Avg. hp: 219
Avg. 0-60 mph: 9.7 sec
% cars vs. light trucks: 50/50
The most fuel efficient fleets were sold in 1987 and 1988, averaging 22.1 mpg. For 1987, the other values were:
Avg. wt: 3220 lbs
Avg. hp: 118
Avg. 0-60 mph: 13.1
% cars vs. light trucks: 72/28
So, it's those hulking trucks and SUVs that have most contributed to the problem, but we've been down that road before!
Interestingly, if you go back to another decade to 1977, the avg wt would be more like today's, but hp and 0-60 would be more like 1987's! Fuel economy, though, would be much worse.
Taking it back another decade to 1967, the avg. wt still would be significantly higher than in 1987, and both hp (even after converting from gross to SAE) and 0-60 would be higher than in 1977 and '87 (I think). Fuel economy might be a smidge better than in 1977.
I would like to preface that with "what is a 3 now was a 7 when the car came out in 2002". It was one of the cleanest cars in 2002. The 2002 Prius is also a "3" in most of the USA. So from your statement anyone driving a 2002 Prius is polluting an equal amount to the Civic HX.
And you know as well as I that the vast majority of 2002 Priuses were bought in CA, a CARB state.
And my point was to reference another post which intimated that maybe the HX was killed because of the hybrid coming out - what actually happened is that it became too difficult to make the HX clean enough.
Can't remember which one was worse, that or a Vic 20.
But to broadcast my original point one more time: all car companies could do it. Slow down your cars, manufacturers! Or at least make slower, gas-sipping versions of the models you already produce. Oh yeah, and go on a MASSIVE weight reduction plan the likes of which the auto industry hasn't seen since 1980.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)