Some Older Cars Get Better Gas Mileage

Here's a great article from CNN that shows how some older cars are a better investment in terms of fuel economy. Imagine -- paying a fraction of the price of a new car for better fuel economy.

This is a great maneuver for the fledging used car guru!

57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
Want to drive a cheap car that gets eye-popping mileage? In 1987 you could - and it wasn't even a hybrid.

Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Car makers are confident they can meet new government rules calling for a national fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. But it will take a big technological push, they say.

You might wonder why, since twenty years ago the car that got the best mileage in the nation was a real techno-wimp compared to what's on the road today. It wasn't even a hybrid. But it got better fuel economy than any car sold now - even the Toyota Prius.

Looking back at the 1987 Honda Civic CRX shows us why cars use so much more gas today and about the trade-offs we've had to make.

The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving. Today, the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid Civic you can buy gets an EPA-estimated 34 mpg on the highway. Even today's Honda Civic Hybrid can't match it, achieving EPA-estimated highway mileage of just 45 mpg. The Toyota Prius, today's fuel mileage champ, gets 46 mpg on the highway.

Why then, not now?

One answer for the mileage drop is that the rating system has changed. Beginning with the 2008 model year, the EPA began using a more rigorous fuel economy test that means lower numbers for most cars. But that's only a small part of the answer.

If the old CRX HF were tested using today's rules, its highway fuel economy would drop to 51 mpg, according to the EPA's calculations. That's still much better than any mass-market car sold today, including hybrid cars.

The bigger answer is that the Honda Civic has changed a lot in twenty years. Honda no longer sells a tiny two-seat version like the CRX. Even Civics with back seats are much bigger and heavier today than similar versions were in 1987.

It's in the nature of the car business that companies want to offer more - more legroom, more trunk space - with each redesign. As a result, cars get bigger and bigger.

Besides size, American consumers expect a lot more convenience out of a car than they did in 1985. Today, we expect power steering, power brakes, power windows and more.

The base CRX HF did not have power steering or power brakes. (As light as it was, it really didn't need them.) Air conditioning was optional, as it was on most cars in those days, so it didn't figure into the EPA's fuel economy ratings.

Today's consumers also expect safety. In the 1980s, car companies would sell cars that got one-star or two-star crash test ratings. Numbers like that would now cause car companies fits. Four out of five stars is considered the minimum acceptable rating.

The modern Civic has airbags front and side, electronic stability control and built-in crash protecting structures in the body. (See correction.)

Even the CRX's biggest fans wouldn't relish the thought of getting into a wreck in one of those cars. While actual crash test results are not available, even a Honda (HMC) spokesman admitted the car probably wouldn't have fared well by modern standards.

"Without the benefit of modern crash structure and extensive use of high strength steel, cars from two decades ago couldn't match the crash test performance of today's Hondas," said Honda spokesman Chris Naughton.

Increased safety, meaning more weight from airbags and crash structure, has meant lower fuel economy.

"It's kind of a classic engineering fight where safe cars compete with more fuel-efficient cars," said Todd Lassa, a writer for Motor Trend magazine and a CRX aficionado.

Lassa once owned a CRX DX, one step up in price and performance - and down in fuel economy - from the HF. (A 1987 sales brochure he still has provided some of the numbers for this story.)

A fun car to drive

Not that the CRX was a bad car. Far from it. Even before Honda introduced a performance version called the CRX Si, the lightweight, fun to drive Civic CRX was Motor Trend's "Import Car of the Year" when it first hit the market in 1985.

Even in its base HF trim, the CRX was considered a fun car to drive because it was small and responsive. Its zero-to-sixty time, though - about 12 seconds by some estimates - would put it well behind even a large, sedate family sedan like the Ford Taurus today.

Weighing less than 1,800 pounds, the CRX HF was powered by a 58-horsepower engine. Today's base Honda Civic weighs almost 2,600 pounds and is powered by a 140 horsepower engine. That's about 12.5 pounds less weight per pony today, despite greatly increased size.

"The lightest cars you can buy today are about 40 percent heavier than that car," Lassa said of his old CRX.

Comparing essentially similar Honda Civic sedans from the 1980s and today reveals that today's car gets considerably better fuel economy (40 highway mg vs. 32) despite having a larger engine with much more power (140 horsepower vs. 76).

Daimler is about to find out how much appetite American's now have for inexpensive little two-seat cars that emphasize fuel economy over performance. It's just begun selling the tiny Smart ForTwo here. But even the ForTwo, which is smaller than the CRX, will get about 41 mpg on the highway, according to Daimler. (Official EPA estimates aren't out yet.).

Rumors swirl today, as they have for years, that Honda is planning to bring out a modern version of the CRX. Lassa says he pushes the idea whenever he speaks with Honda executives.
This time, though, the CRX HF would have to be a hybrid, he said. (Perhaps the one the company just announced it will make for 2009.) There just isn't any other way to pull that off today.

Correction: An earlier version of this story mentioned that the Honda Civic was an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Top Safety Pick. In fact, it the Civic was removed from that list when the Insurance Institute added a requirement for electronic stability control, which the Civic does not have.

Color Matters in Used Cars!

Here's a question for all you apprentice used car gurus: how do you pick your car color? If you said you choose your favorite color, you get a lashing with a wet noodle. There have been several studies that associate car color with accident rates. Studies in New Zealand and in Spain have both confirmed that silver cars are less likely to be involved in passive accidents (i.e., someone smashing into you) than other colors. White cars were next in line in terms of avoiding passive accidents. Blue, red, dark grey, green, black were all significantly more likely to be involved in passive accidents.

Why is this? Hard to say for sure, but darker colors are harder to see at night, and often blend into the background (trees, buildings, etc).

There's another reason to choose a used silver car (or especially a used white car) over darker ones: depending on where you live, insurance companies will discount rates for white or light colored cars based on the studies above.

The final knockout? White cars are often significantly cheaper on the used market. You can often buy the equivalent car in white for hundreds less than red, black or blue.

What color car do I drive? White of course!

So skip your favorite color (unless silver or white are your favorites) and buy the smart money colors when shopping for your next used car.

Save thousands by choosing 2WD

If you love SUV's and pick-ups (like I do) and want to save a fortune, choose a two wheel drive model over the four wheel drive. As a used car guru, you're looking for a model that is not popular on the used market - that's where the bargains are found.

Two wheel drive vehicles get better fuel economy and require much less in the way of maintenance and repairs (no expensive transfer case to deal with). And the best part? You can make a two wheel drive perform as well as a four wheel drive.

Unless you know you will be doing some serious off-road driving (and most people plan to do so but never do), you won't miss the 4WD.

How? Simple, one word: tires. Buy 2 sets of tires.

One set of aggressive tires for gravel roads, getting to the cabin and so forth. Something like a BFG/AT or Bridgestone Revo would do fine. These tires can get you through any backroad (serious mudding aside). You'll be shocked how far you can go on a quality set of aggressive tires.

For winter, a good set of winter tires will make your rear drive vehicle extremely competent in the snow and ice. For example, in a recent post we spoke about the rear-drive Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis, which are used in all Northern States and in Canada throughout the winter using only good sets of quality snow tires. The technology is so advanced that unless you need to drive through very deep snow in uncharted territory, these tires will do wonders for your rear-drive vehicle.

Here's a good article on how snow tires on 2WD can beat 4wd with all-seasons in the snow and ice.

Both tire sets will last twice as long (i.e., using one set in the summer, the other in winter), so there is no extra cost over the longer term.

So why are you -- a budding used car guru -- paying more for 4WD when there are bargains to be had with the same model in 2WD?

An awesome family hauler

So many families automatically trundle down to a dealer and pick-up a minivan without thinking. Problem is that minivans are overpriced, underpowered and notoriously unreliable (Caravan transmissions, Windstar headgaskets, Sienna sludge). Well, my dear friend, those folks are not used car gurus in training.

As a budding guru, you should be looking for that diamond that no one else is looking for. And for a family, that diamond is a 1998+ Grand Marquis (or Crown Victoria, which is the same car without some of the fancy doodads).

"But that's a grandpa car," you say.

"Have you ever driven one?" I ask.

"Uhh, no," you say.

When you see cops chasing down criminals on high-speed chases on TV, what car do you suppose they are driving? Yes, the mighty Crown Victoria. Would cops use a grandpa car to chase crooks?

"But cop cars are different," you say.

No, they are not. They have some heavier duty brakes, shocks and starters, but they are the same car as the civilian model. The one that seats 6, has one of the lowest fatality rates of any vehicle, and can withstand as many miles are you can put on it (400,000 miles on these cars are not unheard of). Ever ride in a cab? Yup, Crown Victoria, check out the odometer -- big, big mileage, and the cab companies buy their cars from the cops when the cops are done with them!

"But it has a V8 which is hard on gas," you say.

Well, you've never driven one, and I can vouch for the fact that they get near 30mpg on the highway, and a good 17-18mpg in the city, better than most SUV's and equal to most minivans (with a lot more power and comfort).

Oh yes, the comfort. Drive a this full-size American beauty and enjoy the smoothest, most comfortable ride you've ever had.

Remember from the last post: gas is one of the cheapest thing to go into your car!

And for us, dear used car gurus, the best part: the Kelley Blue Book value on a top condition 1998 Grand Marquis with all the bells and whistles is a mere $5,000. And you could negotiate that down to $3500 by reading this blog. And your family (and especially your kids) will love you -- more space and comfort than they've ever experienced.

So let me see, a $30,000 minivan (with taxes, fees, etc), or a $3500 Grand Marquis that won't die for 400k miles, no payments, and an extra $26,500 to invest...hmm...I wonder which one I want....

If you said that in 5 years, that Grand Marquis would be worth $2700, and the van will be worth $13,000, you get extra guru points. You'll eat about $700 in depreciation on the Grand, and $17,000 on the shiny new van (your figures may vary, but not by that much).

What's the most expensive aspect of running your car?

When I ask people what's the most expensive aspect of running their vehicles, I get the following top 3 answers:

1. Gas

2. Repairs

3. Insurance

Guess what? All 3 are incorrect. The most expensive aspect of any new car is depreciation, something people never consider as a real cost but it is real indeed. The average depreciation for a car driven 13,000 miles per year is 20% the first year, and 12% thereafter. So a $30,000 car is worth roughly $13,000 in 5 years (if you're lucky and have no accidents, scrapes, big dings, etc.). So that's a $17,000 loss, or $3,400 per year. Gas is roughly $1500 to $2000 per year, insurance about $1000, and maintenance about $1000.

Here's more: that $17,000 has what's called "opportunity costs" meaning the cost of doing something else with that money other than paying for depreciation. So for example, in this bull stock market, $17,000 would be $34,000 in 5 years. So that shiny new car you paid $30,000 had a real cost to you of $34,000 in 5 years.

Ouch! In posts to come, we'll talk about how to avoid that financial sinkhole.

Used cars can change your life

I've started this blog to encourage people to purchase only used cars. In the coming months, we'll explore the endless advantages of used cars, including:

- How used cars can build your investment portfolio
- How used cars are good for the environment
- How used cars can make you money
- How used cars can let you drive in style
- Which used cars are the best buys (hint: not Toyotas)
- Which used cars are best for families
- Much, much more

So subscribe, enjoy, debate, and join the used car movement -- it can change your life!