I used to think aerodynamics only mattered at high speeds too, but cyclists have taught me otherwise (that’s the explanation I’ve been given about why aerodynamic fairings are prohibited under UCI rules).

Not that I’m saying the aerodynamics are the only issue, but they do apparently contribute more than I once thought.

It is interesting that some people (no, it’s not just you) find the Civic too low for comfort, particularly given the interior’s similarity to a 2000 Accord. I don’t doubt it; looks like I really only have 2-3 inches clearance, and I’m somewhat less than 5′11″ these days.

Re the xB: I wonder how much that level of aerodynamics really matters at sane highway speeds? I’m sure it doesn’t matter in city driving. (I know nothing of these matters, to be sure.)

I was wondering about the effect of emissions standards on fuel economy. One has to assume that as we add more components to the exhaust system we increase the amount of energy required to push the exhaust through them.

My wife drives a 2001 Civic and is enjoying good economy, but I have trouble fitting into it. My head bumps against the roof when the seat is mostly upright, and when I recline far enough to clear the roof, I find my arms are too short to comfortably reach the steering wheel. So then I scooch the seat forward and do weird things with my legs to make them fit under there.

The comfort was one of the winning points when I bought my xB, but all that boxiness defies aerodynamics.

@Stan:

The EPA’s fueleconomy.gov site now reports all estimates, including those for old cars, with the new rating standard. Those high-economy cars of yesteryear were actually sold with a sticker that suggested as much as 60 MPG (not the 50 or so by today’s standards).

Smaller motor, but because it has to have the full set of safety and emissions equipment that makes all modern U.S. cars heavier, it’s just about as heavy…so the motor’s working harder.

And I think the above also says why you’re not seeing too many very-high-MPG cars: Multiple air bags, emissions control, etc., are making small cars bigger and heavier.

I’ll attest that we get 40 to 45MPG *on the highway* in our Civics, with air conditioning running (they’re EX sedans with automatic)–but rarely more than 27 or so in short-commute driving. But we probably get that mileage because we’re not speed demons; we’re rarely more than 3MPH above the limit, if that.

As for cheap, well, a used Civic might qualify, but…

Agreed on all points. I was chagrinned to see my fuel economy improve when I started driving the way my grandfather has always told me I should.

Still, what happened to the 51 MPG Geo Metro (which I think I’d be happy to drive if I could get one)?

You might also might want to look into ways to drive more efficiently. I tend to get 28-34 mpg in my V6 Nissan Maxima thats rated for like 21/27. There are people who get crazy milage from normal cars. The Honda Accord diesel should be a nice car as well when it comes to this side of the world.

Yeah, sticks are cheaper on both the new and used market, but I gave up trying to teach San to drive one when it started to affect our marriage. Finding the Scion xB automatic actually gets better mileage than the standard, however, sealed that deal. I’d still consider a standard, but it’d be a hard decision to make.