It is all relative. Averaging 20 mpg is pretty good for an SUV, terrible for an economy car.

So I don't think it is fair just to take all vehicles and judge them equally with respect to what is "good fuel economy."

I just returned from a vacation in Europe (Greece), where I had a BMW 116i as a rental car. The chassis had all the attributes you'd expect from a BMW and made no compromise to fuel economy. The engine was adequate for the car, it revved happily all the way to its redline, and the six-speed allowed to keep it going in its sweet spot. I had no problem using the car in Athens, on freeways, on highways where speed is far from being steady, in smaller towns, on mountain roads. I drove the car pretty hard, never worrying about fuel economy, and it returned me 33 real-world mpg over the entire trip.

Since it's obvious that cars could be constructed lighter than the BMW (the Fit weighs less than 2500 and the Focos weighs 2700, so the 116's 3300 could probably shed 500 lbs), and tuned for more economy (e.g. FWD instead of RWD), 33 mpg in the real-world a fairly poor result, and I'd guess than 15% better fuel economy shouldn't be impossible in the real-world with the right car and some slightly less aggressive driving. That's 38 mpg in the real world, and we're not talking about diesels, turbo-diesels or hybrid-turbo-diesels (because those'd make the numbers fly through the roof).

The real question isn't about whether cars can get good fuel economy, it's whether the US market is willing to accept smaller cars. Gas might have hit a record high in the US, but it's still much cheaper than on the other side of the pond (it's literally twice as expensive in Europe), and it hasn't been expensive enough for long enough to really push for small cars - it just pushed people toward cars that were sold in the US already.

A quick perusal of consumer reviews in Edmunds for the average sedan would seem to indicate that most consumers think that the "magic" 30 MPG is a good number. Now most don't indicate whether that is average or highway MPG. I would think that if someone came out with a mid sized sedan that delivered high 20s in the city and mid 30s on the highway and did not feel anemic in terms of passing and cruising, you would sell a lot of those cars. SUVs, CUVs and pickups are a different story. There I think that the average consumer would be happy with mid 20s in the city and low 30s on the highway. The current crop of cars and SUVs therefore seem to be "deficient" by 5-10 MPG on average.

jbqueru: The BMW you mention is a good example of getting the best of both worlds, fun-to-drive and "good" fuel economy. But, stacked up against U.S. cars, your Euro-Bimmer out performed most everything on our U.S. roads. I'd really call that excellent mileage.

karjunkie: I had always thought of 30 mpg has a real milestone in terms of fuel economy. But few cars reach that number when you look at combined city/hwy. Then, even cars like the Fit come in at about 27 mpg.

I agree with Lee Scott. It's all relative depending on the market segment.

35 mpg highway would be good for a compact, 30 would be good for a mid-size, 25-27 for a full-size, and 20-22 for a full size pickup or SUV. 7 mpg would be good for a tractor-trailer.

If you're looking for a generic "good" figure, I'd go with 30 mpg highway as a rough benchmark. Please note that "excellent" would still need to be defined.

+1 Norcalplanner and Lee Scott!

".....and tuned for more economy (e.g. FWD instead of RWD)...."

Why should FWD have better fuel economy than RWD? The only difference between the two is there the driven wheels are located; I can't imagine that the shaft to connect the engine to the wheels in a RWD car weighs that much extra to make a difference!
So, is better economy of FWD real or a myth? If it's true, why?

Norcalplanner: I agree that ultimately "good fuel economy" will depend on the market segment. But it might help other people (not informed people like us) clarify their thoughts about fuel economy and ultimately reduce consumption.

Blackadder: I think the RWD/FWD question must have more to do with the performance setup for a RWD than anything else.

I'm still taking votes for "good fuel economy." I have 30 mpg/hwy as a bench mark. Anyone else?

Quote from Karjunkie: "...I think that the average consumer would be happy with mid 20s in the city and low 30s on the highway."

I completely agree. I am looking into buying a new car pretty soon, and the mpg of those cars fall within that range.

Would I like to have more? Of course, but from an enthusiast's perspective- the closer you get to 30mpg, the less fun the cars are to drive.

Until small cars escape the stigma of "Econoboxes" in this country, they will not gain more acceptance and improve in driveability.

Quote from jbqueru: "I just returned from a vacation in Europe (Greece), where I had a BMW 116i as a rental car. The chassis had all the attributes you'd expect from a BMW and made no compromise to fuel economy. The engine was adequate for the car, it revved happily all the way to its redline, and the six-speed allowed to keep it going in its sweet spot. I had no problem using the car in Athens, on freeways, on highways where speed is far from being steady, in smaller towns, on mountain roads. I drove the car pretty hard, never worrying about fuel economy, and it returned me 33 real-world mpg over the entire trip."

I don't know much about the car culture in Europe, but clearly they seem to understand that compromosing size, doesn't mean conpromising driveability. When have you ever heard of someone praising the quality of their last rental car in this country?

25-30 combined mpg sounds good to me, but I'm hoping that the bar gets raised in small cars.

Philip,

It's going to be difficult to define "good" fuel economy without a lot of qualifiers such as breaking it down by market segment. What's "good" for someone who has no family and lives where it's flat and never snows is going to be different from what's "good" for someone who has a large family and lives in a mountainous area off a dirt road where it snows regularly.

The other problem is that we need to take into account other financial incentives or disincentives to buying particular vehicles. I'm thinking in particular of the business deduction established a few years back where small business owners could deduct the entire cost of a vehicle in the first year so long as it was 6,001 lbs GVWR or greater. Tax policy like that has the exact opposite effect of encouraging greater fuel economy.

I know it's politically a non-starter, but if the gas tax was slowly increased over time and indexed as a percentage of price instead of cents/gallon, the market would shift even more quickly toward more fuel efficient vehicles.