Found this link today. It's sad that cars used to get better mpg back in '82 compared to today. Makes me wish I still owned my Plymouth TC3.
Maybe, like the fellow says in the comment following the list, the EPA figures were overly optimistic at the time. It's an interesting site none-the-less.

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/09/...high-mpg-cars/

I don't think many people got those kind of numbers , but we probably did not have hipermilers in those days. Gas prices went pretty high then as well and big line ups! H

True that we did not have hybrids back then, but there were hypermilers (although we were not called that). Even back them there was a movement to conserve oil and to reduce emissions (we called it "SMOG" in LA, but it was generally less important that stretching fuel). The basis of the movement was the 1600cc engine, and it was generally felt that a four seat family car simply did not need more than that. The Corolla and the 1600cc Datsuns were the standards, with a few of us opting for Volkswagen Golfs or Jettas. I had a diesel VW pickup that would get 43 MPG, and I modified it with an aftermarket turbocharger to make it "cleaner". Most of the people in this group were in California or Arizona. Somehow it didn't catch on very well in the Eastern US.

It is the ignorant among us that will eventually destroy us all.

My Dad gave us an 'Chevette' but we don't need to discuss what happened.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

Looking at a single column doesn't tell the whole story. 24 City, 40 Highway MPG? That's a pretty big difference, and that's for cars traveling at 60 miles per hour for the highway as well. As mentioned, it was unlikely that most drivers saw the EPA numbers anyway, let alone maintain an average greater than the old EPA Highway MPG estimate for tank after tank. I'm not saying that it's impossible, after all, I've managed to do that with the FEH, but for all but a very select minority, yes, it probably was "impossible".

First 4WD Hypermiler

Have you read the FEH FAQ?

Live in Michigan? Let it be known in Michigan Roll Call

Read My Automotive Blog at Rich Rambles

I believe highway speeds were 55 back then.

Another factor is weight.
1982 Civic's curb weight was around 1500lbs. Today's Civic is around 1,000lbs more and has a larger engine to match.

Today's Civic is radically different in almost every way since then. Although the acutal MPG has gone down, the overall efficiency has gone up if you take it all into consideration.

Anyone remember the early 70's Chevy Vega? It had good sticker numbers. But you had to drive it floored for any acceleration at all. (0-60 in what? 20 seconds?)

-Steve

Efficient drivers do it better.
1003 miles a tank personal record. 74MPG calculated. HCH1 CVT

Yes I remember the Chevy Vega, I had two of them. Good little cars except for the valve guides. And your right, not much power. The old bug was the same ! Full throttle all day long, and if you got tail wind you may hit 65mph. H

I think that numbers that EPA came up with for the TCH are somehow flawed. I personnaly know three owners who routinely exceed the EPA numbers, and although one of the other ones and myself drive for mileage, I do not think the other two do. I am also certain that if you drive it for power, you will NOT get the EPA numbers, but I am convinced that even a nominal effort at economy will achieve them. After all, I live in a northern state with cooler climes, I use snow tires in the winter, my commute has foothills if indeed not mountains (about 1200 feet between home and work) and half of it is light city driving at 40-45 miles per hour (which is not the best case for the TCH). It is true that my FE will never catch Nash or some of the other southern drivers, but EPA, Bah -- no problem.

It is the ignorant among us that will eventually destroy us all.