Why are there no new cars in the top 10

[zpiloto]

Looking over the top ten there are no cars after 99. Is it because they are still under warrenty or are older cars easier to tweak?

TOP 10
Pontiac 98
Honda 92
Ford 99
Honda 93
Metro 93
Saturn 99
Honda 91
Metro 94
Mero 94
Honda 94
16th Saturn 2002

Over EPA
Ford 99
Saturn 99
Honda 91
Plymouth 90
Honda 93
Honda 93
Honda 93
Honda 92
Pontiac 98
Honda 92
Toyota 92
19th Honda 2005

Total cars in Garage (these numbers are from the search engine on the site(which I suck at) so not 100% accurate)
Metro
11
Honda
65
Saturn
3
Yaris
15
Ford
10

[bzipitidoo]

At least, that's what I've read. US safety requirements were made more stringent in 2000 or 2001, and the easiest way to meet them was add more metal around the passenger compartment. I have also read that if you wish to license something like a Ford Ka in the US, you'd have to add metal rods to the B pillar and perhaps beef up a few other spots.

If you did a top ten list of US cars from lightest to heaviest, I bet you'd see the same sort of thing. Nothing 2000 or newer would be in the top 10.

[GasSavers_Ryland]

If you look at engine size, horse power rating, horse power to weight ratio, and options that are now standard, you will notice all of those going up as cars get newer, new cars are designed to get high reveiws from people who spend 30 minutes in a car, push all the buttens, stomp on the gas pedal a few times, then go off to a cubical to write a review that is ment to sell said car, if it's not bigger, faster, has more cup holders, and cushy seats, it gets a bad reveiw.

[GasSavers_BluEyes]

Originally Posted by Ryland

If you look at engine size, horse power rating, horse power to weight ratio, and options that are now standard, you will notice all of those going up as cars get newer, new cars are designed to get high reveiws from people who spend 30 minutes in a car, push all the buttens, stomp on the gas pedal a few times, then go off to a cubical to write a review that is ment to sell said car, if it's not bigger, faster, has more cup holders, and cushy seats, it gets a bad reveiw.

I want a Lotus Elise personally. Closest thing to my ideal car but maybe a touch heavy. I believe the radio is still optional.

[MakDiesel]

Originally Posted by BluEyes

I want a Lotus Elise personally. Closest thing to my ideal car but maybe a touch heavy. I believe the radio is still optional.

Word. Equal in weight to my Si but twice the power and crazy lateral G's. Closest thing to a street legal track car w/ none of the "luxuries" that add x-hundred lbs to every bloated piece being made today. MAk

[rh77]

I'm just guessing that 2 factors are at play here:

First being the size of the average vehicle has increased significantly over the last 15 years.

Look at the same name 15 years ago (Accord, Camry, even Maxima and Taurus since they were first introduced).

Secondly, the advent of OBD-II has made it increasingly difficult to fool the computer into more efficient conditions or to meet those conditions physically. The ECU holds the key to so many variables of FE vs. Emissions and driveability that it's probably harder to tweak and to really get access to.

Fuel maps and the oxygen sensor's role in the whole mix is more complicated. Now, with throttle-by-wire and even more electronic gadgetry on cars this decade have made it a challenge to diagnose what they demand for superior FE.

RH77

[MetroMPG]

Ryland's on the money. It's not the computers, or the weight, or the safety equipment. It's only because the auto companies don't believe ordinary, efficient cars will sell in North America, so they've stopped trying. (Or they do believe it, but they don't want to sell them.)

The "new" small cars we have here - which are admittedly bigger and safer than their 10 year old predecessors - are available in other markets with more efficient drivetrains. Yaris & Fit spring to mind.

Repeat after me: you do not want an efficient small car. You do not want an efficient small car. You do not want an efficient small car...

[Mike T]

Don't I count? Or did my car get disqualified because it is diesel? I was briefly #3....and my car is a 2005 model.

[Silveredwings]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Repeat after me: you do not want an efficient small car. You do not want an efficient small car. You do not want an efficient small car...

I do not want an efficient small car... I do not want an efficient small car... I do not want an efficient small car...

...hey what am I saying? Stop it. Those are jedi mind tricks.

[GasSavers_Brock]

Same here if diesels were in the top 10 I would be in there all the time with our 2003 TDI wagon.

Although on this note the VW diesels keep getting bigger and more powerful engines. So anything newer then the 03's get lower and lower mpg, but more power.

Another thing cutting back on the mpg's is the emissions. There are a few mods on the diesels that can increase mpgs but also increase emissions. I wonder how true that might be with gassers as well?